KAPUR, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order, dated, 15. 06. 1988, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Neem-Ka-Thana has framed charges against the accused-non-petitioners for offences under sections 147, 148, 326,325 and 324/149 IPC, but refused to frame charge under section 307 IPC. The case was sent back to the Chief Judicial Magistrate to try the case according to law. The challan in the case was not put up under section 307 IPC, but looking to the collapse of lungs, the learned Magistrate had committed the case for offence under section 307 IPC also. However, this injury was not considered sufficient to cause death by the doctor who examined the injured, hence the learned Additional Sessions Judge proceeded under section 228 Cr. P. C.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the injured Boduram was given beating on the head which has resulted in injuries and looking to the manner in which the dangerous weapon was used and 17 injuries were caused, the offence would fall under section 307 IPC. He has emphasised that the injuries of Boduram were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, hence charge under section 307 IPC ought to have been framed. The learned counsel for the accused-non-petitioners has contended that the doctor who examined Boduram has specifically given his opinion that the injury of collapse of lungs was not sufficient to cause death, hence charge under section 307 IPC has been rightly not framed. It is also contended that the trial of the case is amply nearly over and the mayer is most likely fixed for pronouncing the judgment. At this stage much would depend upon the opinion of the doctor. Unfortunately none of the parties have the report of the doctor who examined Boduram, hence referring to the judgement of the learned Additional Sessions Judge it will have to be seen as to what was the nature of the injuries of Boduram. No doubt two injuries on the head of Boduram have been mentioned but they were by sharp weapon and simple in nature. The weapon alleged to have been used is said to be 'rapat' which is said to be like a thick blade. It cannot be said that what kind of injuries such weapon would cause, this would depend upon the evidence in the case. It may be observed that the doctor who examined Boduram does not appear to be an experienced person, he ought to have realised that the gravity of the offence would depend much upon the assessment made by him. He should have given opinion on the question whether the injuries were dangerous to life or not. When a person has not died and services, the sufficiency of the injuries to cause death does not arise for consideration. It may also be said that the doctor has given opinion on the individual injuries and not on the collective effect of the same and such circumstances where the medical evidence can be said to be not very specific then on the basis of the same it would not be appropriate to order the retrial for the offence under section 307 I. P. C. after the Magistrate has completed the trial i. e. after remand under Section 228 Cr. P. C. Interference in revision can be made only when there is illegality in the proceedings and in this case looking to the opinion of the doctor it can not be said that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed any illegality so as to call for interference in this revision. This revision petition be cannot accepted and is accordingly dismissed. . ;