1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 231 of 1998. Date of Decision: 02-06-2008. ____________________________________________________________ State of H.P. ……..Appellant. Versus Roop Lal. . ……..Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, J. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? . For the appellant : Mr.P.K. Sharma, Addl. Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr.H.S. Giani, Advocate ______________________________________________________________ Surjit Singh, J. (oral) Heard and gone through the record. This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment of Sessions Court whereby the respondent, who was tried of an offence under Section 307, I.P.C, has been convicted of offence under Section 324, I.P.C. and sentenced to under-go rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of rupees 5000/-, in default of payment of fine, to under-go imprisonment for a further period of six months. State is aggrieved by the judgment and prayer is made for converting the conviction and sentence from 324, I.P.C. to 307, I.P.C and for awarding appropriate sentence. Respondent himself has not filed any appeal challenging the finding that he is the author of the injuries which, according to the State, were inflicted in an attempt to commit the murder of the injured and the trial Court has held that it was a case of simple injury with a sharp edged weapon, i.e, knife. Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? 2 We have heard the learned Additional Advocate General and gone through the record. The view taken by the trial Court is erroneous on the face of it. PW11 Dr. Mohinder Singh, who examined the injured lady, namely Smt. Sunehru Devi (PW1) when she was taken to his Hospital at Sarkaghat, very categorically stated that one of the three wounds noticed by him on the person of said Sunehru Devi, was dangerous to life. The wound, as per testimony of this witness, was incised. It was on right iliac region measuring 6 cm x 2 cm and intestines were exposed. The injured was referred to Zonal Hospital at Bilaspur where she was examined by Dr. J.P. Nadda) PW10) who found that part of stomach and gall bladder were protruding out along with intestines. Now when the intestines and parts of stomach and gall bladder were protruding out, there should not have been any reason for dis-believing the opinion evidence of Dr. Mohinder Singh (PW11) that the injury was dangerous to life. This was especially so when the opinion evidence of the said Doctor had not been subjected to cross- examination by the respondent. However, we find no evidence on record indicating that the intention of the respondent was to kill the injured or to cause an injury which could have caused her death in the ordinary course of nature. An injury endangering human life falls in the category of grievous injury, per clause eighthly of Section 320, I.P.C. Therefore, the respondent is liable to be convicted and punished for offence under Section 326, I.P.C. For the fore-going reasons we accept the present appeal and hold the respondent guilty of offence under Section 326, I.P.C. He is convicted accordingly. He has been sentenced to under-go rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of rupees 5000/- by the trial Court. We do not think that the sentence should be enhanced because the incident had taken place fourteen years back and the sentence awarded by the trial court is adequate even for the offence under Section 326 I.P.C, looking to 3 the facts and the circumstances of the case. So we award the same sentence for the offence under Section 326, I.P.C as has been awarded by the trial Court for the lesser offence, i.e, offence under Section 324, I.P.C. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. (Surjit Singh) Judge. (Surinder Singh) Judge. June 02, 2008. (bm)