BABU LAL MEENA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the complainant petitioner with the prayer that the impugned judgment dated 13.05.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jaipur District, Jaipur be quashed and set aside to the extent of the acquittal of the accused respondents under Sections 307, 307/149, 451 and 341 IPC.

(2.) IN short, the facts of the case are that one Hanuman Sahay lodged a report against the respondents on 04.05.2007 stating that they had inflicted blows by various weapons like stick, Khurpada, iron rodes, etc., resulting in injuries on various parts of the body. On the said report, an FIR No. 195/2007 was registered at Police Station Amer, Jaipur. On conclusion of the investigation, the police filed challan against the accused respondents under section 147, 341, 323, 325, 307 and 451 IPC. After committal of the case, the learned Sessions Judge transferred the same to Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jaipur District, Jaipur, who conducted the trial and on conclusion of it, passed the impugned judgment on 13.05.2008. The learned trial court had convicted the accused respondents for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 323/149 and 325/149 IPC but had acquitted the accused respondents for the offence under Sections 341, 451, 307 in the alternative 307/149.

(3.) IN view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and looking to the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the learned trial court has not committed any error in holding that the accused respondents are not guilty of the offence under Section 307 IPC. It is a settled principle of law that in order to attract the offence of attempt to murder, the medical evidence on record has to be in the term that the injuries sustained is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. IN the case of Bhiyan Ram & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan, 1980 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 688, Hon'ble Court, in para 27, had observed that:-Dr. Kothari has not stated that the injury on the head was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, so he has only said that it was dangerous to life. This view also finds support in the judgment delivered by Hon'ble S.C. Agrawal, J. (as he then was), in the case of Munna vs. State of Rajasthan, 1984 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 529, wherein His Lordship had observed as under:- I have perused the statement of Dr. Y.K. Sharma and I find that during the course of examination-in-chief he has stated that the injury found after operation could result in death. Dr. Sharma has not stated that injury that was found on the person of Jafar Mohd. was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. IN the circumstances it cannot be said that if Jafar Mohd. had died, the appellant would have been guilty of the offence under section 302 IPC. IN the facts and circumstances of the case the offence that would have been made out against the appellant in case Jafar Mohd. has died, would have been culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under section 304 IPC inasmuch as the appellant could only be attributed with the intention to cause an injury which was likely to cause death.