IMPORTANT POINTS
Attempt to murder—Only one injury was given by the accused to the injured--Accused-appellant is held guilty of an offence under section 308 IPC instead of Section 307 IPC.
Attempt to commit culpable homicide--Delay in lodging the FIR—In a case under section 308 IPC, delay in lodging the FIR cannot be taken into account when there is a single accused.

K.S. Ahluwalia, J. Oral:- The instant appeal has been preferred by Bhupinder Singh son of Amar Singh, resident of Ajit Nagar, Jalandhar. As per headnote on the impugned judgment, at the time of pronouncement of the judgment, he was 58 years. He was sought to be prosecuted in case FIR No. 68 dated 7-5-1992 registered at police station Division No. 4-Jalandhar. He has been convicted under Section 307 IPC by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar and sentenced to undergo RI for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default thereof to suffer further RI for three months.

2. The FIR in the instant case was registered on the statement of Major Rajinder Sharma, who stated therein that he had received an information that Col Dyal Singh Kang had been stabbed in abdomen near hotel Skylark at about 9-30 PM on 6-5-1992 by one Bhupinder Singh. On reaching the spot, he came to know from the CRPF Guard at Circuit House that an altercation had ensued between the accused and the injured, due to colliding of scooters. Lt Col Dyal Singh had been taken to the hospital.

3. Before adverting to the factual matrix of the case and analysing the same, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has raised five arguments. Firstly she argued that in this case the prosecution has miserably failed to establish identity of the accused as his name was not known to the injured. Secondly, she has argued that though the place of occurrence was a thoroughfare, being near Skylark hotel and it has also come in the FIR that the CRPF Guard was posted in the Circuit House, it was incumbent upon the investigating/prosecuting agency to join an independent witness, but none has been joined. Thirdly, the learned counsel has argued that the weapon of offence has not been established as the weapon shown to the injured in Court was not the same as used by the accused. The fourth argument raised is that the injured-witness has been duly confronted with his previous statement, wherein he had stated that he had handed over the assailant to a Head Constable of the police. Her last argument is that there is a delay in recording of the FIR as also in delivery of the special report.

4. Although the learned counsel has made the aforesaid submissions with full vehemence in an attempt to persuade this Court, yet I am not ready to accept any of her contentions for the reasons stated hereinafter.

5. In the instant case, FIR was lodged by a Major, who got an information that Lt Col D.S. Kang had received stab injury in his abdomen. Sequence of events would go to show that the occurrence took place on 6-5-1992 at 6-30 PM. The victim reached the Military Hospital at 10-30 PM, after being referred by the Civil Hospital. There was a single stab wound of 3 cms present over abdomen, 5 cms from umbilicus. As per Dr. D.P.Srivastava (PW-1) he was immediately shifted to ICU.

6. PW3 Lt. Col. A.S. Raghunath, Surgical Specialist has deposed that on the same night, he had operated upon the injured as the injury was entering the peritoneum abdomen and had caused bleeding. According to the opinion of this witness, the injury was grievous in nature and dangerous to life.

7. The learned counsel has pointed out during the course of arguments that there is no x-ray report. I am afraid, this cannot be accepted as the abdomen is a soft tissue and there can be no fracture. As per the surgical opinion, which is to be considered in this regard, this injury was dangerous to life.

8. The reading of the FIR and the deposition of PW 4, Lt. Col. Dyal Singh Kang-the injured goes to show that the latter was coming on a scooter and collided with the scooter of the accused, on which his wife and two children were also sitting. Due to impact, they fell down. Apparently, the Armyman and the accused, who was having his wife and children, (who fell down), exchanged hot words and an altercation ensued. Therefore, this Court will consider alteration of the offence as occurrence took place on the heat of