IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.A No.232 of 1997 Decided on : December 16, 2009 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Sant Ram and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, and Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. K.C. Rana, Senior Advocate, with Ms Uma Manta, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) State has appealed against the judgment dated 31st December, 1996, of learned Sessions Judge, Chamba, whereby respondents Sant Ram and Saran Singh, who were tried for offences, under Sections 307 and 323, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, have been acquitted; and respondent Thain Singh alias Thethia, who too was tried for the aforesaid offences, has been convicted of offence, under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay fine of Rs.2,500/-; in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… 2. Case of the prosecution, which led to the trial of the respondents, may be stated. All the three respondents and their accomplice Bhagat Ram had been returning from a village fair, in the area of Samote. Injured Charan Singh (PW-1) was also with them. When they were walking in the direction of their village, they happened to have a quarrel with PW-1 Charan Singh. They gave him beating twice or thrice, on the way. It was night time. When they reached near the house of one Sant Ram in village Jassor Tundi, one of them, namely Thain Singh alias Thethia, picked up a stone and hit PW-1 Charan Singh on his face, as a result of which his nose and mouth started bleeding profusely. PW-2 Tarbeej Singh, a cousin of injured Charan Singh saw the incident taking place. PW-3 Kewal Krishan reached the spot on hearing the commotion. PW-1 Charan Singh was rushed to Primary Health Centre, Samote, where his wound on the scalp was stitched. 3. PW-6 Dr. V.S. Guleria conducted the medical examination of injured Charan Singh and noticed the following injuries: 1. There was profused bleeding from the nose, mouth and from the wound. Even after the stitching of the wound, bleeding continued from nose. 2. Blackening of the left eye due to bruise. Eye ball was not visible. There was laceration of the lower eyelid. 3. Swelling of the right eye also with bruise. …3… 4. Lacerated wound on the right cheek. Fresh bleeding was present. Stitches were applied. 5. Lacerated wound with left maxillary region. Fresh bleeding was present and stitches were applied. 6. Lacerated wound on the scalp, left parietal region. Fresh bleeding was present and stitches were applied. The doctor opined that injuries No.2 to 6 were simple in nature, but injury No.1 was dangerous to life. 4. On completion of investigation, all the respondents alongwith their dead accomplice Bhagat Ram were challaned. Case was committed to the Sessions Court by the concerned Judicial Magistrate. Leaned Sessions Judge charged all the three respondents with offences, under Sections 307 and 323, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Respondents’ accomplice Bhagat Ram died before the charge was framed. Respondents pleaded not guilty to the charge. They were, therefore, tried. 5. Respondents denied that they had given beating to PW-1 Charan Singh. They pleaded that PW-1 Charan Singh was heavily drunk and because of that he could not keep balance while walking and fell on stones. 6. Learned trial Court did not believe the defence version. It concluded that PW-1 Charan Singh had been beaten up by one of the respondents, namely Thain Singh alias Thethia and as a result of that beating PW-1 Charan Singh sustained some simple hurts and also a grievous hurt …4… and that it was not a case of attempted murder. Consequently, respondent Thain Singh alias Thethia was convicted of offence, under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced, as aforesaid. The other two respondents were acquitted. 7. State has challenged the judgment of the trial Court. It is alleged that the evidence on record proves the charge against all the three respondents and that since one of the injuries was dangerous to life, the trial Court was not justified in concluding that only the offence of voluntarily causing grievous hurt is made out. 8. We have heard the learned Additional Advocate General as also the learned counsel for the respondents and gone through the record. 9. A perusal of the testimony of PW-1 Charan Singh suggests that he was beaten up only by respondent Thain Singh alias Thethia and deceased Bhagat Ram. The other two respondents, as per testimony of PW-1 Charan Singh, did not give any beating to him, leave alone causing any serious hurt. Therefore, we see no merit in the appeal of the State, so far as it challenges the acquittal of respondents Sant Ram and Saran Singh. 10. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that since the opinion of PW-6 Dr. V.S. Guleria is that the wound that caused the bleeding through mouth and nose was dangerous to life, the trial Court ought to have held …5… respondent Thethia guilty of offence of attempted murder, under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. No doubt, the doctor gave the opinion that the injury was dangerous to life, as internal haemorrhage and active bleeding from the source could have caused hypovolumic shock, but that by itself does not mean that respondent Thethia intended to kill PW-1 Charan Singh. He picked up a stone and threw the same at PW-1 Charan Singh, in the darkness of night. The stone caused only a bleeding wound on the face. No doubt, the hurt caused by throwing the stone also resulted in internal bleeding, but in the absence of definite and specific evidence, it cannot be presumed that respondent Thethia intended or even had the knowledge that the wound, which was likely to be caused on account of the throwing of the stone would be causing internal haemorrhage. 11. Every injury, which is dangerous to life, does not take the case from the purview of Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code to that of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. An injury dangerous to life is a grievous hurt, per clause eighthly of Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code. Such an injury would render the accused liable, under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, only if requisite mens rea to cause death is there. 12. In view of the above position, we do not find any merit in the submission that Thethia should have been convicted, under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. …6… 13. Another submission made by the learned Additional Advocate General is that the punishment awarded to respondent Thethia is too meagre for the act committed by him. We do agree with the submission of the learned Additional Advocate General, but keeping in view the fact that the incident took place long-long back, i.e. in the year 1992, we do not consider it proper to enhance the punishment at this belated stage. For the foregoing reasons, appeal is dismissed. ( Surjit Singh ), J December 16, 2009(sd) ( Surinder Singh ), J