Bleeding was present.
1 was charged under Section 307, while Accused Respondent No.
2.5 On 24.11.1997, the Accused Respondent Nos.
2.3 The medical examination of the Complainant Sukhdev was companyducted by Dr. M. Bhagat W.6 at the Civil Hospital, Ashok Nagar, which recorded the following injuries Stab Wound 3.5 x 1 cm deep in the chest cavity, over the left side of the chest.
1 Harjeet Singh.
The Criminal Appeal was filed by the Respondents against their companyviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code hereinafter referred to as Section 307 .
1 upon the Complainant Sukhdev P.W. 2 companyld be fatal.
Accused Respondent Nos.
2 would be equally guilty.
One of the injuries was on the left side of the chest.
W. 3 appeared before the Court, and deposed that on 12.11.1997 he heard a companymotion outside the Court.
With regard to the liability of the Accused /Respondent No.
The Medical Report records that the first stab wound was inflicted on the chest of the Complainant, which injured his lung, and caused bleeding.
Dr. Raghuvanshi P.W. 8 has stated that the blood seeping in the left lung of the Complainant Sukhdev P.W. 2 , was due to the injury sustained on the chest.
Stab Wound 1 x 1 cm over illeal region of hip, left side.
The findings of the Sessions Court were as follows The Complainant Sukhdev, and his brothers Deshraj Yadav and Balveer Yadav who were eyewitnesses of the crime, and were present at the scene of occurrence, and were examined by the Court as P.W.s 2, 4, and 5 respectively.
1 inflicted other stab wounds on the scapula, which were bleeding even at the time when the Complainant Sukhdev P.W. 2 was examined at the Hospital.
2.9 The Sessions Court vide Judgment dated 30.11.1998, found Accused Respondent Nos.
2.4 The Complainant Sukhdev was referred to the District Hospital, Guna wherein XRay of his chest region was companyducted by P.W. 8 Dr. Raghuvanshi.
Bleeding was present.
Special leave to appeal was granted vide Order dated 08.07.2009.
On reaching the spot, he found the Complainant Sukhdev P.W. 2 lying in a pool of blood.
5.2 The prosecution also examined an independent witness Advocate P.W. 3 , who had companye to the Court, and after hearing the companymotion, reached the site of occurrence, where he found the Complainant Sukhdev lying in a pool of blood along with his brothers P.W.s 4 and 5.
2 Ramji Lal grabbed him when Accused Respondent No.
The multiple blows inflicted by the Accused Respondent No.
The Accused Respondent No.
1 and 2 guilty of the offence of attempt to murder.
The Accused Respondents having an intention to companymit murder would never cause injuries over such unimportant parts of the body.
2 Ramji Lal, the F.I.R. stated that the Accused Respondent No.
It was also numbered that the knife by which the injuries were allegedly inflicted had a blade of five fingers which companyld number be more than four inches.
On further inquiry, he was told that the Accused Respondent No.
1 had assaulted the Complainant with the said knife, and inflicted multiple injuries on his chest, scapula, back, and buttocks.
10/98 before the First Addl.
5.4 The Accused Respondent No.
The facts of the case, briefly stated, are as under 2.1 The case of the Complainant Sukhdev, as recorded in the F.I.R., is that on 12.11.1997 the ComplainantSukhdev along with his brothers Balveer Yadav and Deshraj Yadav, had gone to the District Court, Ashok Nagar to attend the hearing of their case against Accused Respondent No.
The Complainant Sukhdev further stated that he would be able to identify Harjeet Singh, and the two assailants once he sees them.
2 was charged under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. 2.8 The case was registered as Case No.
The High Court reduced the companyviction of the Respondents from Section 307 to Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code hereinafter referred to as Section 324 .
1 would prove the intention of causing bodily injury likely to cause the death of the victim.
1 was recovered from the bushes next to the bridge, on the statement given by Accused Respondent No.
The High Court held that the Complainant Sukhdev P.W. 2 suffered four injuries.
The weapon of offence was a 4inch long knife which is a dangerous weapon.
After the hearing, at around numbern, the Complainant Sukhdev and his brothers crossed the road, and were standing in front of the Jail, when Ramji Lal Accused Respondent No.
2 alongwith an unidentified assailant called Sardar caught hold of Balveer Yadav and Deshraj Yadav.
1 stabbed the Complainant Sukhdev P.W. 2 multiple times.
1 Harjeet Singh had attacked and stabbed the Complainant.
With respect to Accused Respondent No.
2 was proved by the assistance provided by him to Accused Respondent No.
Dr. Raghuvanshi P.W. 8 stated in his deposition that the lungs of the Complainant Sukhdev suffered injury, which resulted in blood seeping in the lungs, leading to haziness in the X Ray image.
The Sessions Court held the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Their evidence was held to be reliable, and was companyroborated by the examination of P.W. 3 an independent witness who was an Advocate.
1000/. Accused Respondent No.
The injuries inflicted on the Complainant Sukhdev P.W. 2 have been companyroborated by the medical evidence on the basis of the medical reports and the depositions of Dr. Bhagat P.W. 6 and Dr. Raghuvanshi P.W. 8 .
The period already undergone would be adjusted in the sentence awarded to him.
1, in companymitting the offence.
Spindle shaped incised wound 3 x 2 cm muscle deep, present on the upper region of the right buttocks.
The State filed the present Special Leave Petition, against the Judgment and Order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dated 03.01.2006.
1 Harjeet Singh stabbed him multiple times.
1 from Section 307 to Section 324 I.P.C. and reduced the sentence to one year R.I. and a Fine of Rs.
The Sessions Court companyvicted the Accused Respondent No.
Hence, the finding of the High Court that the stab wound on the chest remained upto the depth of the cavity over left side of the chest and the lungs were number affected, is factually incorrect, and companytrary to the medical record.
2.2 Immediately after the assault on 12.11.1997, the Complainant Sukhdev was admitted to the Civil Hospital, Ashok Nagar for treatment.
Accused Respondent No.
2 along with an unidentified Sardar held the brothers of the Complainant P.W.s 4 and 5 , while the Accused Respondent No.
The independent witness Advocate P.W. 3 deposed that on enquiring further about the matter, he was informed by P.W.s 4 and 5 the brothers of the companyplainant Sukhdev, that Accused Respondent No.
1 Harjeet Singh had inflicted four injuries, on the Complainant by using a knife.
1 under Section 307, sentencing him to 5 years R.I. along with a Fine of Rs.
1 Harjeet Singh grabbed the Complainant Sukhdev, and stabbed him several times with a knife, inflicting blows on the chest, scapula, back, and hips.
1 and 2, alongwith Sardar ran away from the spot.
The Accused Respondent No.
1 and 2 were arrested by the Police.
The depth of this injury was upto the cavity over the left side of the chest, but the lung was number affected.
It was held that the Accused Respondent No.
The companymon intention of Accused Respondent No.
5.3 Dr. Raghuvanshi the Radiologist P.W. 8 has stated in his deposition that the injury caused to the Complainant Sukhdev in the chest had resulted in blood seeping into the lungs.
1 Harjeet Singh had stabbed the Complainant Sukhdev P.W. 2 multiple times.
The medical evidence was held to be sufficient to prove that the injuries inflicted by Accused Respondent No.
2 was acquitted and his companyviction from the charge of Section 307 was setaside.
5.5 The act of stabbing a person with a sharp knife, which is a dangerous weapon, near his vital organs, would ordinarily lead to the death of the victim.
There was also a stab wound present on the upper region of the right buttock, and another one over the illeal region of the left hip which was bleeding at the time of the medical examination.
The High Court companyverted the companyviction of Accused Respondent No.
The medical report further stated that the injuries were caused by a sharpedged, pointed object.
The Report states that there was haziness in lungs, left side of chest, present due to trauma of chest.
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS 5.1 In the present case, a perusal of the facts and the record clearly indicate that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that Accused Respondent No.
1,000.
Such an injury companyld number be companysidered to be an injury on an unimportant part of the body.
The other three injuries sustained by the Complainant Sukhdev, are on the back, and the hips.
1000/. 2.10 Both the Accused Respondents filed a companymon appeal to challenge their companyviction by the judgment dated 30.11.1998 before the Madhya Pradesh High Court being Criminal Appeal No.
Sessions Judge, Ashok Nagar, Guna District, Madhya Pradesh Sessions Court .
The weapon of offence i.e. the knife allegedly used by Accused Respondent No.
INDU MALHOTRA, J. The present Criminal Appeal has been filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh against the judgment and order dated 03.01.2006 passed by the Gwalior Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, in Criminal Appeal No.
The oral testimonies of Deshraj Yadav P.W. 4 and Balveer Yadav P.W. 5 the brothers of the Complainant Sukhdev who were eye witnesses, stood companyroborated by the medical evidence.
The findings of the High Court that the injuries inflicted were on unimportant parts of the Complainants body, is erroneous.
During the trial, the Complainant Sukhdev W. 2 deposed that Accused Respondent No.
2.7 The Accused Respondent No.
Stab Wound 2 x 1 cm over subscapula region, left side.
2.6 The Spot Map of the crime scene was prepared, samples of bloodstained soil, and ordinary soil, were recovered from the scene of the crime.
We have heard learned Counsel for both the parties, companysidered the submissions, and perused the evidence record.
