- (1.) S. K. Verma, J. This is a second bail application. The first was rejected by me. Earlier X-ray report were not available and on the basis of the reports of X-ray it has been argued that the injuries are simple. Several decisions have been cited by the learned counsel for the applicant to support the state ments that where injuries are simple the case under Section 307, I. P. C. is not made out.
(2.) MENTION may be made of State of U. P. v. Amarnath, 1992 (29) ACC 490 (DB), Babu and others v. State of U. P. , 1991 (28) ACC 616 ; Kundan Singh v. State of U. P. , 1991 (28) ACC 393 ; Asharfi v. State of U. P. , 1991 (28) ACrc 47 ; Lukman v. State, 1986 ACC 141 and Nepal Singh v. State, 1987 ACR 576. In all these decisions application of Section 307, IPC was considered. I have gone through these decisions. It appears that where a victim was helpless and if the accused wanted he could have reached near him and done him to death immediately but on the contrary the accused ran away, there was no intention to kill. Similarly where injuries on the vital part of the body were not shown to be dangerous to life and had not cut either any blood vessel or injured the bones, the offence disclosed was not under Section 307, IPC, but only under Section 324, IPC. Again where there was no evidence that injuries cumulatively or individually were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and there was merely shouting for killing it was not enough for drawing inference that the assailants have intention to cause death.
(3.) AGAIN where shots were not repeated and the injuries caused were simple in nature intention to kill could not be inferred. In one of these decisions Asharfi v. State of U. P. (supra) it was opined that it is always more desirable to draw inference from the injuries caused.;