The court established that a conviction under section 307 IPC requires clear evidence of intent and the dangerous nature of injuries, which was not met in this case.

JUDGMENT :

Ganesh Ram Meena, J.

1. The present criminal appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellant against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 17.02.1994 passed by the Court of learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, No. 3, Kota Camp, Ramganjmandi, District Kota (Rajasthan) [for short ‘the learned trial Court’] in Sessions Case No. 190/1992, whereby, the accused appellant has been convicted for the offence under section 307 IPC and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine, the accused appellant has to further undergo Six month additional Rigorous Imprisonment.

2. As per the case of the prosecution, complainant, Mohan Singh (PW 4) lodged an FIR No.78/1991 (Ex.P3) on 16.05.1991 at Police Station Ramganj Mandi, District Kota for the offence under section 307 IPC. Complainant mentioned in the FIR (Ex.P3) that at about 12 in the night his brother Bajrang Singh was sleeping on a cot outside the Chabutri and adjacent to his brother his father Amar Singh was sleeping and at some distance his maternal uncle (Mama) Karan Singh was sleeping. All of a sudden when Bajrang Singh cried then his maternal uncle (Mama), his uncle and he came outside the house. Bajrang Singh told that Gordhan Singh S/o Nawal Singh gave two blows from the knife on his stomach and his father and maternal uncle (Mama) has seen Gordhan Singh running after giving blows from the knife. The complainant further mentioned that huge blood was oozed out. Complainant further mentioned that on account of selling the wine of ‘Theka’, quarrel is going on in between them and due to this enmity Gordhan Singh with intention to kill him, gave blows from the knife.

3. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused appellant for the offences under sections 307,326 I.P.C and section 4/25 Arms Act, 1959 in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ramganjmandi.

4. The case was committed to the Court of Session for trial. The learned trial court framed the charges against the accused appellant for the offences under sections 307,326 IPC, to which they denied and opted for trial.

5. From the prosecution side, the statements of 12 witnesses were recorded and certain documents were exhibited.

6. The statement of the accused appellant was recorded under section 313 CrPC. The accused appellant in his statement has denied about the allegations levelled against him and deposed that he has been falsely implicated in the instant case.

7. The learned trial court vide its judgment 17.02.1994 convicted and sentenced the accused appellant for the offences as mentioned above.

8. Mr. K.K. Mehrishi, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Timan Singh, appearing for the accused appellant submitted that PW11-Surendra Mohan Mathur who had examined injured, at the first instance has not given any opinion about the nature of the injuries. Counsel submitted that PW12-Dr. Gauri Shankar Chauhan, Medical Jurist, S.R.G. Hospital, Jhalawar, who conducted X-Ray examination of injured, did not found any abnormality. Counsel also submitted that PW12-Dr. Gauri Shankar Chauhan did not give any definite opinion about the injury being dangerous to life in ordinary course of nature and he on the basis of Bed Head Ticket mentioned that two injuries were to be dangerous to life in ordinary course of nature, if timely not operated. Counsel also submitted that Dr. S.B. Bhatnagar, Junior Specialist, who as per statement of PW-12 Dr. Gauri Shankar, operated the inured has not been produced as a witness, so as to prove the operation note and in the absence of his examination, it is not established that the injury was dangerous to life in the ordinary course of nature.

9. Senior Counsel for the accused appellant also submitted that the prosecution has not proved injury reports of Nem Singh, Ram Dayal, Smt. Sarupi & Yadram according to the procedures laid down in the Evidence Act. The prosecution got these injury reports of the aforesaid inju