AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 385 wordsI.S. Tiwana, J.
The petitioners impugned the order of the Additional Sessions Judge for charging them under Section 307, Indian Penal Code, alongwith some other charges. Initially, the case against them was registered under Sections 323/441/427/148/149, Indian Penal Code. The injury which is stated to have been caused by one of the petitioners and for which the petitioners have been charged under Section 307, I.P.C. is of the following type :
"Lacerated wound 1/2 cm x skin deep on the left parietal bone of the scalp in almost in its middle and 3 cm. lateral to the midline. Advised Xray."
It is the undisputed position that subsequent to the further examination by the doctor, this injury was declared to be simple in nature.
What appears to have impressed the lower Court for framing the charge under Section 307, I.P.C. is that at one stage i.e. December 18, 1985, the doctor declared this injury on police request as one which "may prove dangerous to life". Further, the Court also took, notice of the fact that on that date when the doctor examined the injured, namely Atma Ram, the later complained of pain in head and giddiness.
Having perused the impugned order in the light of the medicolegal report, to me, it appears preposterous on the part of the Additional Sessions Judge to have framed a charge against the petitioners under Section 307, I.P.C. Concededly, the prosecution case is that at the time of the occurrence, all the six petitioners were armed with guns, revolvers and Gandasis, but none of them appears to have caused any injury with those weapons. The nature of the injury, in the light of which the said charge under Section 307, I.P.C. is said to have been framed, discloses that it is only a lacerated wound and that too skin deep. This on the face of it was a blue weapon injury. Further, the opinion of the doctor that this injury "may prove dangerous to life" completely took the case of the prosecution out of the ambit of Section 307, I.P.C.
In the light of the discussion above, I allow this petition and set aside and the impugned order to the extent so far as a charge under Section 307, I.P.C. has been framed against the petitioners.