SADIQ RAMI GULAM HUSSEIN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two cross-appeals arise from same judgment in Sessions Case No. 122 of 1990 of Ahmedabad City Sessions Court. The appeal filed by the State is in respect of the acquittal of the accused for an offence punishable under Sec. 307 of I.P.C. and the appeal filed by the accused is against conviction and sentence for offence under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 324 and 394 of I.P.C.

(2.) The prosecution case is that at about 3 O'clock in the mid-night of 16/12/1989, the accused committed theft and robbery in Railway compartment by stealing a suit-case of one Kanchanben when her husband Sohanlal caught the accused who was carrying the stolen suit-case in the said Railway compartment, the accused put down the suit-case and gave knife blows to Sohanlal in the abdomen and near left eye. His wife and his brother (complainant) were there and members of the public had also gathered and the accused was caught there and then red-handed with the blood-stained knife. After the trial, the learned City Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the facts of the prosecution case were proved, but having regard to the nature of injury, offence of Sec. 307 was not proved and according to the learned trial Judge, the injury was of simple hurt and therefore, offence was punishable under Sec. 324.

(3.) The State has, therefore, preferred Criminal Appeal No. 810 of 1990 against the acquittal for offence under Sec. 307 and it is submitted by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor that the learned trial Judge has committed error in observing that the injury caused in the abdomen was a simple injury punishable under Sec. 324, whereas the medical evidence was to the effect that the injury was of a grievous character and if the operation was not performed at the proper time, the victim would have died. He had to remain in the hospital for 10 days. Emergency operation was performed to prevent loss of blood and further complication to the internal parts of the body. Having regard to the medical evidence, it is clear that the offence would not be a minor offence punishable under Sec. 324, but it is certainly a grievous hurt caused by the accused and would be an offence under Sec. 326 or having to the nature of the injury on the vital part of the body where the injury was inflicted, it could be an offence punishable under Sec. 307 or 308 as it is an attempt to commit murder or culpable homicide. However, even in that case punishment of imprisonment would have run concurrently with the other sentence of imprisonment. In the present case, the sentence of 7 years imprisonment has been imposed. If that conviction and sentence is maintained, the appeal of the State need not be entertained for academic purpose.