HARI SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C. A. Rahim, J. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 1-9-1982 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Etah in connection with Criminal Appeal No. 112 of 1982. By that judgment he al lowed the appeal, set aside the conviction under Section 324 I. P. C. and directed the Magistrate to commit the accused under Section 307i. P. C. to the Court of Sessions to stand his trial.

(2.) THE submissions of the learned counsel is of two folds. Firstly, he has sub mitted that there was no ingredient of Sec tion 307i. P. C. It appears from the judgment that fire arm injury was found on the chest.-Learned Judge was of the opinion that when the injury was upto the chest cavity it is immaterial whether it was simple or grievous in nature. In case of an injury caused on the vital part of the body by any other weapon other than the fire arm then the intention could be examined from the impact and other circumstances. THE other contention is that in appeal filed by accused learned Sessions Judge should not have directed the lower Court to commit the case to the Court of Sessions, under Section 307 I. P. C. According to the learned counsel the said direction is beyond the scope and juris diction of the learned Sessions Judge as revisional Court. THEre is substance in the contention. I agree that when an appeal is preferred by the accused and no cross ap peal filed by the State such direction should not have been done and the matter should have been left open to the trial Court to consider whether ingredient of Section 307 I. P. C. is there or not. On this ground alone the revision is liable to be allowed.