RAGHUVENDRA S. RATHORE, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the complainant petitioner with the prayer that the impugned judgment dated 13.05.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jaipur District, Jaipur be quashed and set aside to the extent of the acquittal of the accused respondents under Sections 307, 307/149, 451 and 341 IPC.
(2.) IN short, the facts of the case are that one Hanuman Sahay lodged a report against the respondents on 04.05.2007 stating that they had inflicted blows by various weapons like stick, Khurpada, iron rodes, etc., resulting in injuries on various parts of the body. On the said report, an FIR No. 195/2007 was registered at Police Station Amer, Jaipur. On conclusion of the investigation, the police filed challan against the accused respondents under section 147, 341, 323, 325, 307 and 451 IPC. After committal of the case, the learned Sessions Judge transferred the same to Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jaipur District, Jaipur, who conducted the trial and on conclusion of it, passed the impugned judgment on 13.05.2008. The learned trial court had convicted the accused respondents for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 323/149 and 325/149 IPC but had acquitted the accused respondents for the offence under Sections 341, 451, 307 in the alternative 307/149. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned trial court has erred in passing the impugned judgment, whereby he has acquitted the accused respondents for the offence, inter alia, under Section 307 IPC. He has also submitted that in regard to the present incident, cross reports were lodged by the parties. In the other case, the complainant petitioner has also been convicted and an appeal against the same is pending. Therefore, he has submitted that both cases be decided together. He has also made submission by referring to the statements of the medical jurists, in support of his submission, that the offence under Section 307 IPC is made out against the accused respondents. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused respondents has supported the judgment passed by the learned trial court. He has further submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, where there had been civil dispute between the parties and the manner in which the incident had taken place, it cannot be said that there was any intention on the part of the parties to have committed an offence of attempt to murder. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the counsel for the rival parties. So far as the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this revision petition, against the part of the judgment whereby the accused respondents have been acquitted for some of the offences, be decided alongwith the appeal against conviction filed by the complainant petitioner, is concerned, I am of the opinion that the appeals against conviction in both the cases, if it arises out of the same incident, may be decided together. But so far as this revision petition against acquittal for some of the offences is concerned, the primary question is as to whether offence under Section 307 IPC is made out or not from the medical evidence on record. In such view of the matter, I do not find it necessary that this revision petition, against the order of acquittal for some of the offences, must be decided alongwith the appeal filed against conviction awarded to the parties. A perusal of the impugned judgment goes to show that the learned trial court has elaborately discussed the evidence on record and thereafter arrived to the conclusion on the basis of which the accused respondents have been acquitted for the offence under Section 307 while convicting them for the offence inter alia, under Section 325/149 IPC. The learned trial court has observed as under:-" ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... Further, the learned trial court has taken into consideration the evidence of Dr. Manish Agarwal (PW-11) and observed as Under:- ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... Apart from it, the learned trial court has also considered the evidence on record as to whether there had been any intention on the part of the assailants to cause death and in this regard he has observed as under:- ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]...
(3.) IN view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and looking to the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the learned trial court has not committed any error in holding that the accused respondents are not guilty of the offence under Section 307 IPC. It is a settled principle of law that in order to attract the offence of attempt to murder, the medical evidence on record has to be in the term that the injuries sustained is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. IN the case of Bhiyan Ram & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan, 1980 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 688, Hon'ble Court, in para 27, had observed that:-Dr. Kothari has not stated that the injury on the head was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, so he has only said that it was dangerous to life. This view also finds support in the judgment delivered by Hon'ble S.C. Agrawal, J. (as he then was), in the case of Munna vs. State of Rajasthan, 1984 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 529, wherein His Lordship had observed as under:- I have perused the statement of Dr. Y.K. Sharma and I find that during the course of examination-in-chief he has stated that the injury found after operation could result in death. Dr. Sharma has not stated that injury that was found on the person of Jafar Mohd. was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. IN the circumstances it cannot be said that if Jafar Mohd. had died, the appellant would have been guilty of the offence under section 302 IPC. IN the facts and circumstances of the case the offence that would have been made out against the appellant in case Jafar Mohd. has died, would have been culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under section 304 IPC inasmuch as the appellant could only be attributed with the intention to cause an injury which was likely to cause death. Similarly, in the case of Milkhi Ram vs. State of Rajasthan, 1999 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 718, the aforesaid principle was reiterated. In that case, injuries was caused to Kashmirilal by a pistol. The injury, as per report prepared by Dr. Satya Prakash Sharma, was grievous. The learned Sessions Judge was of the view that it may be sufficient to cause death but in view of the medical evidence that the injury was not sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, it could not be held so. There was no fracture of any bone though X-Ray were taken. Consequently, the conviction of Millkhi Ram under Section 307 IPC was altered to Section 324 IPC. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, I am of the view that the learned trial court has not committed any error in passing the impugned judgment of acquittal. Consequently, this revision petition filed by the complainant-petitioner, against the acquittal of the respondents under Section 307 IPC, stands dismissed as being devoid of merits. ;