Santosh Gir and Others vs State of Punjab and Another

Ajay Tewari, J.—This revision petition has been filed against framing of charge under Sections 148, 307/325/323/341/506 read with Section 149 IPC.

The main argument of learned Counsel for the Petitioners is that the Section 307 IPC was added on 22.02.2010 whereas medical opinion was received only on 24.02.2010. Second argument is that the injuries could not be held to have been sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, in the absence of medical treatment. He also relies upon State of Punjab v. Anil Kumar 1996 (1) RCR 273 and particularly the following passage thereof:

On the other hand, Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate for the accused-Respondent, has contended that the accused never intended to cause such a bodily injury which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and that the provisions f clause eighty of Section 320, Indian Penal Code, are well attracted to the facts of the present case as the injury was found dangerous to life and not being sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. In support of his argument, he has relied upon a judgment of this Court in Tej Ram v. State of Punjab 1978 C.L.R. 76 . In Tej Ram''s case (supra, the injury had ruptured lung of the victim and was described by the doctor as dangerous to life. It was held by this Court that the offence would fall u/s 326 and not u/s 307 of the Indian Penal Code. A similar view was taken by a Division Bench of this Court in Atma Singh Vs. The State of Punjab, . In that case, the medical evidence revealed the presence of a stab injury on he left side of the chest of the victim, which was described by the doctor as dangerous to life. After elaborate discussion, this Court held that the expression ''dangerous'' is an adjective and the expression ''endanger'' is verb and that the injury which can put life in immediate danger of death would be an injury which can be termed as ''dangerous'' to life''. It was held that the Appellant in that case had committed the offence u/s 326 and not u/s 307 of the Indian Penal Code." In the present case the medical opinion reads as follows:

1 Injuries No. 3 and 6 are grievous in nature.

2 There were nine injuries over his body as per MLR out of which six were on his head which is vital part of the body. Moreover two fractures were also detected in X-ray. The patient was unconscious in emergency and not responding to verbal stimuli as per MLR ad remained admitted in hospital for almost ten days. Under the circumstances, no definite opinion can be given regarding his death. He could or could not have died under these circumstances.

A reading of the medico legal report shows that even though no definitive opinion has been given by the doctor yet the framing of charge under Sections 307/325 IPC cannot be called either palpably perverse or arguably arbitrary at this stage.

Consequently this petition is dismissed.