Criminal Appeal No. 716-DBA of 1997 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No. 716-DBA of 1997 Date of decision : 7.5.2008 State of Punjab .....Appellant Versus Tejinder Singh and others ...Respondents **** CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. D.S. Brar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the appellant. S. D. ANAND, J. Inspite of notice, none has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent/accused. However, in view of the fact that leave to appeal in this case had been granted by a Coordinate Bench as early as on 17.10.1997, we opted to examine the record. In the present appeal, the only grievance of the State of Punjab/appellant is that respondents/accused ought to have been convicted for the offence under Section 307 IPC as well. The learned Trial Judge convicted the respondents/accused Tejinder Singh, Baljinder Singh and Sukhdev Singh as under:- Tejinder Singh: “U/s 325 IPC R.I. for two years and fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further RI for six months. U/s 323 IPC R.I. for six months. Criminal Appeal No. 716-DBA of 1997 -2- **** Baljinder Singh U/s 325 IPC R.I. for two years and fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further RI for six months. U/s 323 IPC R.I. for six months. Sukhdev Singh: U/s 325 IPC R.I. for two years and fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further RI for six months. U/s 323 IPC R.I. for six months”. Learned Trial Judge correctly noticed that the offence under Section 307 IPC was not made out in view of the fact that the respondents/accused Tejinder Singh and Sukhdev Singh, though proved to have been armed with a Gandasa each did not use the sharp side thereof and caused injuries only from its blunt side. The injuries caused were on non vital parts of the body. The following finding in the context was recorded by the learned Trial Judge:- “It is also not be said that injury No. 1 was such an injury which the assailants knew that it was so imminently dangerous that it must. In all probabilities cause death or such solidly injured as was likely to cause death particularly when one finds that eve the doctor had not declared it so immediately on examination of the injured.” In the light of the foregoing discussion, we are clear in our mind that the finding recorded by the learned Trial Judge qua the non- applicability of the provisions of Section 307 IPC, and also the reasoning noticed in support thereof, is in order and does not call for any interference. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we have no hesitation Criminal Appeal No. 716-DBA of 1997 -3- **** in holding that the present plea must be invalidated and we so order accordingly. ( S. D. ANAND ) JUDGE May 07, 2008 (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) Pka JUDGE