The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of grievous hurt under Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code and its application in determining the nature of injuries and appropriate conviction for the accused.

Harjit Singh Bedi, J. - This appeal, filed by the State of Punjab, arises out of the following facts :

2. Daljit Kaur (PW5) had been meried with Avtar Singh son of Milkha Singh accused about 15 years prior to the date of incident. Her husband had, however, died about eight years earlier without leaving any child to her. Milkha Singh had, however, misbehaved with Daljit Kaur and had turned her out of the house and refused to give her any part of her husbands property, and on application for maintenance had also been filed in the civil Court at Patti. The application was heard on January 20, 1997 and after attending Court, Daljit Kaur and her mother Gurpal Kaur (PW7) went to spend the night at the house of Manjit Kaur, sister-in-law (wifes sister) of accused Milkha Singh in village Boparai. At about 11 p.m. the same night, Daljit Kaur and Gurpal Kaur were sleeping on one cot whereas Manjit Kaur was sleeping on the other cot. The other family members were sleeping in an adjoining room. The quilt covering Gurpal Kaur and Daljit Kaur was roughly pulled away and Daljit Kaur woke up in the electric light saw the accused standing closely holding a Gandasi in his right hand. He gave 4-5 gandasi blows on various parts of Daljit Kaurs body. On an alarm being raising by Gurpal Kaur, the accused ran away from the spot after scaling over the wall. Daljit Kaur was thereafter removed to the Civil Hospital, Gharyala, and was medically examined. Information was also sent to the Police Station and ASI Jatinderjit Singh (PW11) reached the Civil Hospital and made inquiries from the doctor as to whether Daljit Kaur was fit to make a statement. The doctor opined in the negative. Similar opinions were again sought on 22nd and 23rd January, 1997 but on both occasions the doctor made an endorsement that Daljit Kaur was unfit. Daljit Kaur was declared fit on 24th January, 1997 and her statement Exhibit PD was accordingly recorded and, on its basis, the formal first information report was registered at Police Station Patti at 12.05 p.m. on 24.1.1997 for offences punishable under Sections307 and 458 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The trial Court concluded that the involvement of the accused stood proved from the evidence on record but in the light of the fact that injury Nos. 1 and 4 on the person of Daljit Kaur which had been declared grievous by the attending doctor had not been subjected to an X-ray examination, it could not be said that they were dangerous to life and, in that eventuality, an offence punishable under Section 324 Indian Penal Code alone could be made out against the accused. The trial Court, however, released the accused on probation under section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The present appeal has been filed by the State of Punjab with the plea that the acquittal of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code was not called for. No appeal has, however, been filed by the accused against the judgment impugned. In view of the facts of the case, we had made a special order that the hearing of the appeal be expedited.

4. Mr. Randhawa, the learned Deputy Advocate General representing the State of Punjab, has suggested at the very outset that on the basis of the evidence on record a case under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code could not perhaps be made out, but in the light of the evidence of the doctor and the fact that Daljit Kaur had suffered grievous injuries at the hands of the accused now stood proved as the accused had chosen not to file an appeal, the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and the subsequent release on probation was wholly unjustified. He has urged that the fact that injury No. 1 on the person of Daljit Kaur had not been X-rayed, was of little consequence in the light of the evidence of the doctor who had clearly stated that there had been a partial cut of the Maxilla. It has also been argued that inj