IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No.708-DB of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 7.10.2010. Nitin ......Appellant Versus Manoj alias Duch & others ......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLR MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Gorav Kathuria, Advocate, for the appellant. NAWAB SINGH J. Crl. Misc. No.36949 of 2010 For the reasons set-out in the application, delay of 112 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Main case By judgment of conviction dated November 21st, 2009 and order of sentence dated November 24th, 2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, Manoj alias Duch, Pawan Kumar, Rajender Rawat and Amit Haldhar-respondents No.1 to 4 were convicted and sentenced as under:- Offence Sentence Fine In default 307 IPC RI for 3 years `5000/- RI for 6 months 323 IPC RI for 3 months `1000/- RI for 2 months 506 IPC RI for 6 months `1500/- RI for 3 months 2. Since the complainant has filed the instant appeal seeking enhancement of sentence awarded to the respondents so, the detailed facts are not necessary. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that since the injury caused to Dharambir-injured was declared dangerous to life by the Board of Doctors, the sentence awarded to the respondents under Section 307 IPC was inadequate. 4. The impugned judgment has been perused. The appellants were convicted, inter-alia, under Section 307 IPC and Criminal Appeal No.708-DB of 2010. (2) sentenced as indicated above. The injury on the person of Dharambir was described by learned trial Judge in paragraph No.17. For facilitation the same is reproduced as under:- “A healed scar mark on scalp starting from upper part of right pinna going medially then to opposite side up to the upper part of left pinna. Complaining of pain on scalp and nose. Mild tenderness was present. Complaining of vertigo. At the time of examination, there was no neurological deficit. CT scan was advised for PGI Rohtak. The kind of weapon could not be ascertained at the time of examination and the duration of injury was more than two weeks.” Dr. A.K. Gupta (PW-9) along with the members of Board of Doctors opined the aforesaid injury dangerous to life. 5. The said injury, of course, was declared dangerous but the sentence imposed under Section 307 IPC was proportionate to the gravity of the offence. In this view of the matter, the Court below while awarding sentence has rightly exercised its discretion. Hence, no interference is called for in the order of sentence. Thus, the appeal is dismissed. (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE JUDGE 7.10.2010. SN