STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. JAGDISH & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Four persons namely; Jagdish, Gyan, Mohan and Bijjo faced trial for offence under Sections 323, 341, 324, 447 and 307 Penal Code before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.4, Bharatpur Head quarter at Deeg and the learned trial court vide judgment dated 29.9.2007 while acquitting them of the charge under Sections 447 and 307/34 has convicted accused respondent Gyan Singh under Sections 324 and 323/34, accused respondents Bijjo, Mohan Singh and Jagdish for offence under Sections 323 and 324/34 Penal Code and instead of sending them to jail extended benefit of Sec. 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Being aggrieved of the acquittal of the accused respondents of the charge under Sec. 447 and 307/34 Penal Code the State has filed this leave to appeal.

(2.) Heard learned P.P., learned counsel for the complainant as well as the learned counsel for the accused respondents and perused the impugned judgment and also the material and evidence available on the record of the case.

(3.) From the record it reveals that as per the injury report Ex.P.4 injured Atar Singh sustained two injuries. One was the lacerated wound on left tempo-parietal region by blunt for which Xray was advised and the another was incised wound on Rt. Supra parietal region of scalp by simple sharp. As per injury report Ex.P.5, injured Satto sustained one abrasion on left knee joint which was described as simple by blunt weapon. As per injury report Ex.P.18 injured Ramveer sustained two injuries by blunt weapon. One was the lacerated wound on right side of occipital region of scalp and the another was an abrasion placed between two supra scapular region whereas as per the injury report Ex.P.19 injured Chatur has sustained one incised wound 17cm x 3cm up to bone deep on left parieto occipital region of skull with haemotoma by heavy sharp weapon for which X-ray was advised. As per the report of the Radiologist Ex.P.23, no bony injury was seen on the person of Attar Singh. There is no repetition of infliction of the injuries by the accused. Though to attract the provisions of Sec. 307 Penal Code the injury is not a material factor but what is material to attract the provisions of Sec. 307 Penal Code is the guilty intention or knowledge with which the all was done irrespective of its result. The intention and knowledge are the matters of inference from totality of circumstances. The intention of knowledge of the accused must be such as is necessary to constitute murder. If the medical evidence available on record in relation to the injuries sustained by the injured persons is to be considered taking into consideration the nature of the injuries and the conduct of the accused respondents it is clear that while inflicting the injuries they have any intention or motive to commit murder of any of the injured person. Had there been any such intention on the part of the accused respondents to attempt to commit murder they could have certainly inflicted more injuries on the injured persons but looking to the nature of the injuries, gravity and number of injuries it cannot be gathered that there was any such intention or motive on the part of the accused respondents to cause such serious injury which are grievous in nature or dangerous to life. Parietal region of course is a vital part of the body but the medical evidence available on record does not suggest whether the injury was dangerous to life or gravious in nature. In such circumstances if the learned trial court has acquitted the accused respondents under Sec. 307 Penal Code it has committed no error or illegality and there is no error of law.'