BALWAN SINGH Vs. BHUPINDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IMPUGNED order of 23rd February, 2007 convicting respondent- accused persons for the offence under Section 324/34 of IPC and sentencing them to the period already undergone with fine of Rs.50,000/- to be disbursed as compensation to the injured, is under challenge in this revision petition by petitioner-injured.

(2.) AT the hearing, it was urged on behalf of petitioner that the offence committed in this case falls under Section 326 of IPC whereas respondent- accused persons have been convicted for the offence under Section 324 of IPC which is unwarranted and so this revision petition deserves to be allowed to the extent of altering the conviction of respondent-accused persons from under Section 324 of IPC to under Section 326 of IPC, as petitioner-injured had sustained two penetrating wounds i.e. of 1 cm X 1 cm on the right side of his abdomen and of 3 cm X 3 cm on left side on left lateral of his abdomen wall. It was pointed out by petitioner's counsel that the doctor had opined the injury to be dangerous as it has been found on vital part of the body for which period of imprisonment undergone by respondent-accused persons of less than a month is not an adequate punishment and so they deserve to be suitably punished by altering their conviction for the offence under Section 324 of IPC to Section 326 of IPC. In support of above submissions, reliance is placed upon decisions in Ramesh & Raj Kumar v. State 1989(1) Crimes 261 (Raj.); Niranjan Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2007 SC 2434 and Crl. Appeal No.710/2009 Sagar v. State rendered on 27th September, 2010.

(3.) UPON having heard both the sides and on perusal of the impugned judgment and decisions cited, I find that merely because an injury has been opined to be dangerous by the doctor, the said opinion would not be binding on the Court, who can come to its own conclusion regarding the nature of injury. This is what the trial judge has done in the impugned order, whose operative portion reads as under: -