The central legal point established in the judgment is that the intention to cause death can be inferred from the circumstances, irrespective of the actual wounds, and the nature of the injury and the manner in which it was inflicted are crucial in determining the accused's intention.

Mukta Gupta, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the Appellant against the judgment dated 16th December, 2002 whereby he has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and the order on sentence dated 17th December, 2002 whereby he was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months. Along with the Appellant one Laxmi Narian @ Lakki was also convicted for offence under Section 307/109 IPC and awarded the same sentence. Since the co-convict Laxmi Narian @ Lakki in the meantime was arrested in other case under Section 302 IPC, he withdrew the bail bond in the present case and thus he was released from jail in the present FIR after having undergone the sentence. Laxmi Narian @ Lakki who appeared in person before this Court in Crl.A. 310/2003 stated that he does not wish to pursue the appeal any more.

2. The case as set up by the prosecution is that the complainant Rajesh Avasthi alleged that he resided in H. No. 477, Nanak Chand Basi, Kotla Mubarak Pur, New Delhi and works in the shop of one Jain Saheb who had a godown also, which the complainant was using for the purposes of his residence as well. On 10th September, 2001 at about 6.30 PM they were present in a room over the godown when they heard the noise of a quarrel. One of the boys who was quarreling called Lakki by saying he should come as quarrel had taken place. Lakki came at the spot with other boys including the Appellant herein Prem Raj @ Premu. The complainant knew both these convicts prior to the incident. Laxmi Narain allegedly asked the complainant as to who he was to stop the people from quarreling and gave a fist blow on his face. When the brother of the complainant stopped him from beating, Appellant along with other boys caught hold of the injured and co-convict Lakki asked Appellant to give blow to the injured, on which the Appellant inflicted injuries on his person with sharp edged object. They also beat both the brothers with kicks and fist blows and thereafter fled away. Since the injuries on the person of the injured were opined to be dangerous, charge-sheet was filed under Section 307/34 IPC and the Appellant has been convicted for the said offence.

3. To bring home the charge against the Appellant, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses including PW8 Rajesh Avasthi the complainant and PW9 Rakesh Avasthi the injured. Both of them reiterated their statements made to the Police in the Court. PW9 also stated that the Appellant was armed with a razor and gave razor blows on his nose, temple of the left side, eyebrow, neck and finger. He also identified his blood stained clothes Ex.P1 and P2. Prosecution also examined PW1 Dr. Yash Aggarwal who prepared the MLC Ex.PW1/A of injured Rakesh Avasthi. According to PW1 injured received 5 injuries i.e. on the right eye-brow, incised wound of 2 cm present over left side of the face near left ear and bleeding profusely, degloved injuries right side of nose, incised wound of 5 cm anterior part of neck and incised wound 1 cm left ring finger. PW1 opined the injuries to be caused by sharp edged weapon and dangerous because the patient was in shock, profusely bleeding and could have been fatal if it had not been attended immediately.

4. The main ground for assailing the impugned judgment of conviction is that IPC does not define a “dangerous” injury and merely because the doctor has opined the injury to be dangerous without even giving the depth of the injury, the Appellant cannot be convicted for an offence under Section 307 IPC. Reliance is placed on Piara Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab 1996 CRL.LJ 4333. I do not find any merit in this contention of learned counsel for the Appellant. To determine whether an injury is caused with an intention that if death ensues the same would amount to murder, the Court has to consider the weapon of offence used, the manner in which the injuries are i