The court considered the nature of injuries and the appellant's intent to determine the appropriate charge and sentence.

Judgment

N.K. Gupta, J.;-

1. This criminal appeal is preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 21/11/1996 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in ST No. 574/1995, whereby the appellant was convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 308 of IPC and sentenced for three years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine, six months rigorous imprisonment was also directed. The prosecution's case, in short, is that on 13.4.1995 the complainant Nathuram (PW-1) was working on his handcart shop of snacks. His son Raju @ Kamlesh (PW-2) was selling Samosas. At about 9:00 PM in the night the appellant went to the shop of the complainant and took some Samosas. Thereafter Raju @ Kamlesh asked for money, then the quarrel started. The appellant gave a slap to Raju @ Kamlesh. The complainant tried to stop their quarrel and when he intervened in that quarrel, the appellant took hot oil from the utensil kept on the handcart and poured upon the complainant due to which the complainant sustained burn injuries on his right chest, right abdomen, right hand and right leg. The customers of the complainant saw the incident. The complainant was taken to the Police Station Madan Mahal, Jabalpur where he lodged an FIR Ex. P-1. He was sent to the Victoria Hospital, Jabalpur for his medico legal examination and treatment. Dr. Smt. Sobha Agrawal (PW-6) examined the complainant and gave her report Ex. P-7. She found 25-30% burns to the complainant on his right chest, right abdomen, right leg and right hand. He was admitted in the hospital for the treatment. Dr. S.K. Pandey (PW-5) treated the complainant. He prepared the bed head ticket Ex. P-5. He also sent a reply Ex. P-6 to the query done by the police. After due investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jabalpur, who committed the case to the Sessions Judge, Jabalpur and ultimately it was transferred to the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur.

2. The appellant-accused abjured his guilt. He did not take any specific plea, but he has stated that due to his quarrel with Raju, a push was given to the handcart of the complainant and it was disbalanced, and therefore the utensil having hot oil turned on the complainant. He did not assault the complainant in such a manner. However, no defence evidence was adduced by the appellant.

3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur after considering the prosecution evidence convicted the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 308 of IPC and sentenced him as mentioned above.

4. I have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties.

5. The Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that there was no willful act of the appellant, but a push was caused suddenly to the handcart, and therefore the complainant sustained some superficial burns. The injuries caused to the victim were not fatal in nature, therefore no offence under Section 308 of IPC was made out. In the alternate, it is submitted that the appellant remained in the custody for 22 days. He was a youth of 22 years at the time of the incident, who has faced the trial and appeal for the last 16 years and now he has settled in the life, and therefore he may not be sent to the jail again. The Learned Counsel for the appellant has placed his reliance on the judgment of the Single Bench of this Court in the case of "Ravindra Shyamla Prasad Verma Vs. State of MP", [2000(2) MPLJ 371].

6. On the other hand, the Learned Counsel for the State has submitted that the appellant was to be convicted for the offence under Section 308 of IPC, because the victim sustained 25-30% burns and he could die. Similarly, the sentence directed by the trial Court appears to be correct.

7. After considering the submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the parties and looking at the facts and circumstances of the case, it is to be considered as to whether the appeal of the appellant can b