The first controversy is whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 307 IPC can be maintained or not. In this regard the testimony of Dr.Amarjit Singh (PW-1) is relevant. This witness has stated that on 4.10.2000 at 9.00p.m., he medico-legally examined Suraj Singh son of Sadhu Singh and found ten injuries, as detailed in his statement. He has opined that injuries No.1, 4 and 8 have been caused by blunt weapon whereas the remaining injuries have been caused by sharp edged weapon. He has further opined that on police request Ex.PH, he declared injuries No.1,2,4,6,7,9 and 10 as simple in nature and injuries No.3, 5 and 8 as grievous in nature vide his endorsement Ex.PH/1 dated 9.10.2000. However, the same doctor on the request dated 27.10.2000 Ex.PK vide endorsement Ex.PK/1 declared that all the injuries upon the body of Suraj Singh could be dangerous to life collectively if not treated properly. So that opinion of the doctor, in my view, is not sufficient to attract the provision of Section 307 IPC. The same doctor has previously declared the injuries No.3, 6 and 8 as grievous which are admittedly on non-vital parts and the remaining injuries as simple in nature. So the said opinion, as discussed above, is not sufficient to attract the provisions of Section 307 IPC. So, the judgment of the trial Court convicting the accused under Section 307 IPC does not sustain the test of legal scrutiny. Consequently, the accused stand acquitted under Section 307 IPC. Now reverting to the quantum of sentence under the other provisions of law, the accused have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years under Section 450 IPC and two years under Sections 326, 326/34, 325 and 325/34 IPC.
