KESARILAL Vs. HARI SHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) COMPLAINANT-petitioner has preferred this revision petition against impugned judgment and order dated 16.01.2001 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bundi in Sessions Case No. 55/2000, whereby learned trial court acquitted accused-Respondents No. 1 to 3 from the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. and granted benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to accused persons under Sections 323 and 325 I.P.C.

(3.) FROM the medical report and statement of P.W. 7, Dr. K.C. Dagal, it is clear that P.W. 2, Damodar sustained 23 injuries, which have been reproduced in Para No. 15 of the impugned judgment. FROM the medical report and statement of doctor, it is also clear that out of 23 injuries, no injury was found to be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. This fact has not been disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner also. His only submission is that looking to number of injuries, including fractures, the accused respondents should have been convicted under Section 307 I.P.C. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted, for the simple reason that number of injuries is not relevant, but the nature of injuries is relevant for the purpose of constituting a particular offence. Unless, the injuries sustained by the injured are found to be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, accused persons cannot be convicted under Section 307 I.P.C. In these circumstances, I do not find any merit in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard.