HC: Doc’s remark not enough to prove attempt to murder - Mandi Gobindgarh News

Mandi Gobindgarh News

Mandi Gobindgarh News and Directory

drlalpathlabs.mandigobindgarh@gmail.com

Hot

Post Top Ad

Your Ad Spot

Thursday, July 11, 2019

HC: Doc’s remark not enough to prove attempt to murder


HC: Doc’s remark not enough to prove attempt to murder

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, July 10

The thin line dividing “attempt to murder” and “grievous hurt” has thickened with the Punjab and Haryana High Court ruling that a mere statement of a doctor that the injury was definitely dangerous to life was not enough to constitute attempt to murder offence.

Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan reiterated doctor was required to give specific opinion that the injury sustained by the victim was “sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature”. Early discharge from the hospital in a satisfactory condition, too, was a determining factor.

The ruling by Justice Sangwan came on a petition against the state by Prince Kumar through legal aid counsel HS Randhawa. The appellant had challenged judgment of conviction dated February 21, 2012, by an Amritsar court vide which he was held guilty of attempt to murder offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC. Also challenged was order vide which he was sentenced to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment. This appeal was taken up in the category of cases listed on Saturdays in accordance with the Supreme Court directions.

His counsel submitted the appellant had already undergone two years and seven months of actual sentence. As such, he was restricting his arguments only to the point whether Section 307 was not made out in view of medical evidence.

Referring to the doctor’s opinion and statement, counsel submitted that he was of the view that the injury was dangerous to life. As such, it would fall under Section 326 of the IPC (grievous hurt). The counsel argued in the absence of specific opinion by the doctor that the injury was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature, the case would fall under Section 326. He added it was a case of single injury sustained following sudden provocation

He also referred to judgment in case of “Nand Singh versus State of Punjab” where the court held that the conviction was liable to be converted under Section 326 IPC, even though nine of 17 injuries were declared dangerous to life. But the doctor did not state that the injuries were sufficient to cause death.

The state counsel argued that the injury was sustained by the victim was on vital part – the stomach. It was, as such, dangerous to life.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Post Top Ad

Your Ad Spot