- (1.) This application has been filed under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. seeking leave to file an appeal against the judgment dated 16.3.2012 vide which respondents No.2 to 5 were acquitted of the charges framed against them under Sections 307 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC. It has come on record that vide above judgment, respondents No.2 to 5 were convicted of offences under Sections 452, 323, 325 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced accordingly vide a separate order dated 17.3.2012.
(2.) It is contended by counsel for the applicant that the trial Judge has not appreciated the medical evidence in a proper manner while acquitting the private respondents of the charges framed under Sections 307 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC.
(3.) After going through the paper book, we are not inclined to interfere in the present case at the instance of the petitioner. It has come on record that as per the case of the prosecution, the injury, on the basis of which the provisions of Section 307 IPC were invoked, was caused to Mukesh, who has not come in appeal against the judgment under challenge. Furthermore, at the time of arguments before the trial Court, the Public Prosecutor assisted by a private counsel has conceded that the offence under Section 307 IPC was not made out against the accused because Mukesh (PW.4) had not named any of the accused except Nain Singh. Furthermore, Mukesh (PW.4) has stated that the injury was not caused to him with an intention to kill him. The trial Judge has also noted that the statement made by the doctors are inconsistent and contradictory to each other, taking note of the same, the following findings were given in para 27 of the judgment:- "27. Contrary to it when PW.19 Dr. Harender Bhaskar was examined, who has conducted C.T. Scan, radiograph upon Mukesh, he admitted in his cross-examination that no part of brain was found damaged in this case. He has also admitted in no uncertain terms that injury was not dangerous to life. In these circumstances when there are contrary opinion of medical experts the view favourable to accused is to be adopted. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that injury on the person of Mukesh could not be said to be dangerous to life and thus accused cannot be held guilty for commission of offence under Section 307 IPC. Even as per ocular version PW.4 Mukesh did not support case of prosecution as he could not identify them. He has not stated that injury was caused to him with intent to kill him. Therefore, also Section 307 IPC is made out against accused.;