ORDER

This second application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed on behalf of the applicant for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.476/2021 registered at Police Station Parasia District Chhindwara, for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC and Section 25(1-kha) of Arms Act. Earlier application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated

12/09/2022.

Counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is in jail since 21/12/2021. He further submits that this application has been filed mainly on the ground that material witness i.e PW-13-Dr.Suchitra Sharma got examined. He submits that as per the statement of doctor though the injuries were caused by the accused by sharp edged weapon, but the same were not caused on any vital part of the body. The doctor has further stated that grievous injury means any injury caused on muscle and any particular part of the body which stop the functioning of the body. She stated that she is not in a position to explain whether working of any part of the body of the deceased was stopped or not. She has also stated that what is possibility and what is confirmed. She further stated that in the postmortem report only possibility is shown but nothing can be said with assertion or confirmation. Counsel for the applicant has relied upon a judgment reported in 1995 Supreme Court Cases (Crim) 931 (State of Karnataka Vs. Siddegowda and another wherein the Supreme Court has observed that as to what injuries are grievous in nature and attracted the provision of Section 326 of IPC and what injuries can be considered to be grievous and coming within the ambit of Section 302 of IPC. He further submits that as per the statement of doctor the injuries sustained by the deceased were simple in nature and, therefore, in the light of the judgement passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Siddegowda (supra) conviction of the present applicant can not be made under Section 302 of IPC but it can be made at the most under Section

326 of IPC.

Per contra, counsel for State vehemently has opposed the submissions made by counsel for the applicant. He submits that doctor in her statement has clarified that if any injury is caused by sharp edged weapon that can also be considered to be grievous injury. He submits that as per the doctor after superficial examination of the body of the deceased almost 19 injuries were noticed. He submits that Supreme Court in Siddegowda (supra) has considered the nature of injury but has not considered the opinion of the doctor but here in this case doctor has very categorically stated that whatever injuries caused to the deceased those were of sharp edged weapon and cause of death was over bleeding due to the injuries caused by the accused. Though, the doctor was not sure but said that the cause of death was so. He submits that when doctor is opined the cause of death because of the over bleeding due to injuries sustained, nothing more is required to be considered. He submits that bail application under such a circumstance cannot be considered and the case on which the applicant is relied upon is not applicable fully in the facts of the present case.

Considering the submissions made by counsel for parties without expressing any opinion on merit at this stage, this Court is not inclined to consider the bail application.

Accordingly, the same is hereby rejected.

However, trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within a period of six months.

(SANJAY DWIVEDI)

JUDGE sushma