S.S. Sidhu, J. - (1.) KARNAIL Singh injured has filed this revision petition against the order dated 27th May, 1974 of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala (Shri Surinder Kumar Jain) by which he found that he was of the opinion that there was no ground for presuming that the accused had committed an offence punishable under Section 307 Indian Penal Code and that the case of Teja injured in his opinion was also covered by the offence punishable under Section 325 Indian Penal Code. Accordingly that Court also opined alter considering the case and the documents submitted therewith that there was ground for presuming that the accused had committed an offence which was not exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions and as such it transferred the case for trial to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, with the directions that the parties shall make appearance in that Court on 29th May, 1974.
(2.) THE facts of the case which are necessary for the disposal of this revision petition may briefly be stated as fellows The Court of Judicial Magistrate Rajpura (Shri Nardhir Inder Singh) committed Nihal Singh, Tikka Singh, Sarup Singh. Sant, Kashmiri and Faqiria accused to the Sessions Court for their trial under Section 307/325 read with Section 149 and under Section 1 -8 Indian Penal Code vide its order dated 16th April, 1974. According to the prosecution allegations all the six accused in the case were armed with lathis at the time of occurrence which had taken place at about 12 30 P.M. on 16th March, 1973 in village Devi Nagar and during that occurrence members of both the parties had received injuries regarding which two separate challan were put in Court. The cross case was committed for trial on charges under section 326/325/324/323 read with section 149 Indian Penal Code and section 148 Indian Penal Code. In the present case, Bachna, Teja, Karnail Singh, Jita, Sunder and Jotu had allegedly received injuries at the banc's of the six accused -respondents. As far as injuries received by the said persons excepting Teja were concerned, admittedly these disclosed that prima facie a case under section 325 and 323 Indian Penal Code had been committed by the accused respondents. But as far as Teja's injury allegedly caused by Nihal Singh was concerned, it was found on the basis of the evidence of Dr. K.D. Thukral P.W. 3 who had examined him on 16th March, 1973 at 7.15 P.M. and also on the evidence of Dr. Jagjit Singh, Chief Medical Officer, Patiala, who had formed his opinion only on the basis of the contents of the medico -legal report given by Dr. K.D. Thukral and also the X ray examination report, that prima facie an offence under section 307 Indian Penal Code was made out against the accused on the basis thereof It was in these circumstances that the present case as well as the cross case were committed to the Sessions Court for trial When the learned Public Prosecutor opened his case by describing the charges brought against the accused -respondents and also stated by which evidence he would propose to prove the guilt of the accused, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that even the injury received by Teja prima facie made (sic) offence under Section 325 Indian Penal Code and not under Section 307 Indian Penal Code and, therefore, that Court sent the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for its trial. Now, it is to he seen whether there is any illegality in or impropriety with the impugned order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, dated 27th May, 1974 against which this present revision Petition has been filed. In my considered opinion, there is none and, therefore, the impugned order does call for any interference. Dr. K.D. Thukral, P.W. 3, who examined teja at 7.15 P.M. on 16th March, 1873 stated that the injury found on the person of Teja was grievous and that was caused by a blunt weapon That Doctor nowhere stated while giving statement before the committing Magistrate that that injury was dangerous to life. It was only on 5th June, 1973 that the Police secured the opinion of Dr. Jagjit Singh, Chief Medical Officer. Patiala, that the injury found on the person of Teja could have been dangerous to life. That doctor was then examined by the committing Magistrate even at that time also he retreated his aforesaid opinion. It was on the bash of that the learned committing Magistrate committed the present case as well as cross case to the Sessions Court for trial. It is to be noted that Dr. Jagjit Singh himself never examined Teja injured. He gave his opinion as stated above simply after going through the medico -legal examination report prepared by Dr. K.D. Thukral P.W. 3 and also the X -ray examination report prepared by the Radiologist in respect of the injury of Teja and that too after the expiry of two months and 20 days. Dr. K.D. Thukral was of the opinion that the injury sub -stained by Teja was grievous and was caused by a blunt weapon. In view of the said positive opinion given by Dr. K.D. Thukral who actually examined the injury of Teja, it will be too much to give any importance to the statement given by Dr. Jagjit Singh in whose opinion that injury could have been dangerous to life. Moreover, there is much difference between the expression 'dangerous to life' and could have been dangerous to life'. The latter expression connotes that the injury may or may not be dangerous to life. In view of this matter, the trial Court rightly held that prima facie the injury sustained by Teja disclosed commission of an offence under section 325 Indian Penal Code and not under Section 307 Indian Penal Code. I, therefore, find no sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned order of the learned Court below. Accordingly this revision Petition fails and is dismissed and the impugned order of the Court of learned Additional Sessions judge dated 27th May, 1974 is maintained. The parties, through their counsel are directed to appear in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala on 3rd November, 1978. ;