Manmohan, J.— (Oral)

CRL.M.A. 15944/2012

Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

CRL.REV.P. 489/2012 & CRL.M.A. 15943/2012

1. Present revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 13th August, 2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, SD, Saket, New Delhi whereby petitioners have been charged under Section 308/34 IPC.

2. Mr. Rajiv K. Garg, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the trial court has failed to appreciate that the doctor had in no uncertain words opined the injury as simple after examining the same. He further submits that as the doctor had opined the injury not to be dangerous or grievous, petitioner could not have been charged under Section 308 IPC. In this connection, he relied upon following judgments of this Court:-

i) Brahm Dutt & Ors. Vs. State & Ors., 1996 JCC 183.

ii) Surinder Kumar Vs. State, 1997 JCC 45.

iii) Desh Raj Vs. Kewal Krishan & Ors., Crl. Rev.P. 544/2001 decided on 23rd November, 2009.

3. However, the Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar Vs. NCT of Delhi & Ors., (1998) 8 SCC 557 has held that to make an offence under Section 308 IPC, the nature of injury is not conclusive. The relevant portion of the Sunil Kumar (supra) is