JUDGMENT A.N. Jindal. J.:-This judgment disposes of Criminal Appeal No.827-DBA of 1997 filed by State of Punjab and Criminal Revision No.110 of 1998 filed by Sanjeev Kumar petitioner-complainant, having been arisen out of the judgment dated 7.5.1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, whereby the accused-respondent Avtar Singh (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) was acquitted of the charges under Sections 307/333 IPC, whereas convicted under Section. 332 IPC and was ordered to be released on probation on his furnishing probation bonds in the sum of Rs.5000/- with one surety of the like amount for the period of one year and to pay Rs.500/- as costs of proceedings. 2. Factual matrix of the case is that on 9.5.1994, when Sanjiv Kumar No.8782 of Punjab Home Guard, Police Station ‘C’ Division, Amritsar (injured) along with other constables had gone to call Ghuki, Latti and Amarjit Singh in connection with the complaint against them. He came across the accused A vtar Singh alias Latti and informed him about the inquiry against him and told him that he has been called in connection with the said inquiry. Accused Avtar Singh alias Latti refused to accompany them. Resultantly, a scuffle took place in which the accused in a bid to flee caused injuries to Sanjiv Kumar Complainant Constable Bhupinder Singh tried to apprehend the accused but failed. 3. On the aforesaid statement before SI Surjit Singh, FIR was registered against the accused. Investigation was commenced. On completion of the investigation, challan against the accused was presented in the Court. 4. Finding a prima facie case, a charge under Sections 307/333 IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. In order to secure the conviction of the accused, the prosecution examined Dr. Krishan Kumar Sharma (PWI), HC Gurcharanjit Singh (PW2), Dr. Manjit Singh (PW3), Rishi Ram Draftsman (PW4), Constable Bhupinder Singh (PW5), Sanjiv Kumar complainant (PW6), Dr. Sukhwinder Singh (PW7), Partap Singh Platoon Commander (PW8) and SI Surjit Singh I.O. (PW9). 6. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication in this case. During defence, he examined Iathedar Amrik Singh DW1), Gurmeet Singh (DW2), Pritam Singh (DW3), Jasbir Singh (DW4) and Swaran Singh (DW5). 7. 6. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication in this case. During defence, he examined Iathedar Amrik Singh DW1), Gurmeet Singh (DW2), Pritam Singh (DW3), Jasbir Singh (DW4) and Swaran Singh (DW5). 7. On conclusion of the trial, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, vide its judgment dated 7.5.1997, while acquitting the accused under Sections 307/333 IPC, convicted him under Section 332 IPC and sentenced him accordingly. Hence this appeal by the State. 8. We have heard Mr. U.S. Dhaliwal, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, Mr. D.S. Pheruman, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the records of this case with their able assistance. 9. At the very outset, learned counsel for the respondent has not challenged the judgment of conviction and has asserted that the trial Court appreciated the evidence in right perspective while exonerating the accused under Sections 307/333 IPC an convicting him under Section 332 IPC as the injuries, by no stretch of imagination, could be tenned as dangerous or grievous in nature. It has been urged by Mr. U.S. Dhaliwal, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab that keeping in view the nature of injuries as observed by Dr. Krishan Kumar Sharma (PW1) and operation notes as recorded by Dr. Manjit Singh (PW3), the injuries were certainly dangerous for life, therefore, the accused could be convicted under Section 307 IPC if not under Section 333 IPC. 10. In order to appreciate the nature of injuries, we deem it, appropriate to reproduce the testimony of Dr. Krishan Kumar (PW1) who medico-legally examined Sanjiv Kumar complainant on 16.5.1994 at 2.30 PM and found the following injuries on his person:- 1. There was bandage over anterior abdominal wall 22 x 14 cms. Advised opinion of surgical notes and progress report. 2. He complained of pan on back of chest near loin region. The injury No.2 was declared simple and the injury No.1 was kept under observation and the kind of weapon was subject to the operation notes for injury No.1. He also proved his opinion Ex.PA/I, vide which he declared the injury No.1 as dangerous to life. Dr. Manjit Singh (PW3), who operated upon the injured on the same day i.e. 9.5.1994, observed as under:- “The peritoneal cavity was full of blood. Fresh and clots. He also proved his opinion Ex.PA/I, vide which he declared the injury No.1 as dangerous to life. Dr. Manjit Singh (PW3), who operated upon the injured on the same day i.e. 9.5.1994, observed as under:- “The peritoneal cavity was full of blood. Fresh and clots. There was six perforation present on the jejunum which was stitched in two layers after cleaning the abdominal cavity with saline. I have seen my operation notes Ex.PH. These were in my hand and bear my signatures. On the application of the police Ex.PB/, I gave my operation notes. I have brought the bed head ticket. Photo copy of the same is Ex.PC. Sanjiv Kumar was admitted in the Emergency Surgery at 2.30 PM on 9.5.1994 and on the same day in the evening he was operated upon” Besides the aforesaid doctors, the prosecution examined Dr. Sukhwinder Singh (PW7), who examined accused Avtar Singh on 14.5.1994, at 4.20 PM and stated that he was conscious, cooperative orientation time and place was normal. Memory was normal and no injury as found on his body. 11. Now on analysis of the aforesaid evidence, we are not persuaded to hold that the injury No.1, on the person of the complainant Sanjiv Kumar was dangerous to life. Dr. Krishan Kumar Shanna (PWI) who medico-legally examined him on 16.5.1994 at 2.30 PM, did not .mention in his medico legal report Ex.PA, if the injury was dangerous to life. He had seen only bandage and not the injury. Certainly, he could not any opinion regarding the nature of injury. He had also not given the size of the injury but gave size of the bandage as admitted by him during cross­ examination. It is not transpired as to what inspired him to make his opinion regarding the injury as “dangerous to life” especially when the operation notes also do not contain any such opinion to the effect that if on exploration of the injury, some danger was found to the life of the injured or that injury was eminently dangerous to life or also that the injured could not survive but for timely medical aid. It may further be observed that the accused ‘had no requisite intention to cause death or had no knowledge that the injured would have died if such injury had been caused to him. It may further be observed that the accused ‘had no requisite intention to cause death or had no knowledge that the injured would have died if such injury had been caused to him. The intention or knowledge of the accused must be such as is necessary to constitute the offence under Section 307 IPC and without this ingredient being established, there could be no offence of attempt to commit murder. Sanjiv Kumar (PW6) has no where stated that the accused Avtar Singh attacked him with small kirpan with an intention to commit murder. Further more, when Sanjiv Kumar was on his way to hospital, SI Swjit Singh (PW9) met him at Chattiwind chowk and recorded the statement of Sanjiv Kumar complainant (PW6). Had life of Sanjiv Kumar complainant been really in danger, then he would have taken him to the hospital without wasting any time. The trial Court has rightly relied upon the judgment in case Sita Ram vs. State of Haryana, 1983 (3) C.L.R. 400, wherein it was observed that where the doctor did not observe in the operation notes that the injured would have died but for medically aid, then the injury could not be said to be dangerous to life. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case from any angle, it would not be safe to hold that the injury No.1as suffered by Sanjiv Kumar was dangerous to life. As such, we concur with the judgment passed by the trial Court and do not find any infirmity in the same. Hence, the appeal being un­merited is hereby dismissed. Consequently, the Criminal Revision No.110 of 1998 filed by the petitioner-complainant Sanjiv Kumar also stands dismissed. ——————————————