JUDGMENT A.N. Jindal, J. - Prem Singh accused-respondent (hereinafter to be referred to as respondent) was tried for the offences under Sections 452, 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as Indian Penal Code), for causing injuries to Lalit Kumar on 8.12.1993, but on trial, vide judgment dated 2.11.1996, learned Additional Sessions Judge (V), Faridabad convicted him for the offence under Section 324 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months simple imprisonment. 2. The State of Haryana by way of this appeal challenged the acquittal of the respondent under Sections 452 and 307 Indian Penal Code. 3. The facts leading to the prosecution of the respondent are that on 8.12.1993 at 11.45 a.m., when Lalit Kumar was attending his class in Government High School, Saran (Faridabad) then the accused armed with knife entered the class room and caused injuries to Lalit Kumar. 4. On the basis of the statement made by Ram Chand (PW-2), FIR Ex. PM was recorded at Police Station NIT Faridabad. 5. On completion of investigations, challan came to be filed against him. 6. The case of the prosecution has been supported by Lalit Kumar (PW-4) and his version stands supported by Ram Chand (PW-2) and Parmanand (PW-3). 7. Yet the question for determination in this case is whether the offence committed by the accused falls within the purview of Sections 307 and 452 Indian Penal Code ? 8. In this regard the statement of Dr. Amar Bajaj, Medical Officer, B.K. Hospital, Faridabad (PW-1) needs to be noticed. He found the following injuries on the person of Lalit Kumar :- "1. An incised wound 4 cms x 12 cms over right infrascapular region 8 cms right to mid line Muscle exposed Bleeding profusely. Corresponding cut on the shirt was present which was sealed. Injury was referred to surgeon for expert opinion. X-ray chest and abdomen in standing position was advised. 2. An superficial incised wound 2 cms x .25 cms. over palmer aspect of distal phalanx of right thumb was present." 9. The Radiologist, who x-rayed the injury No. 1 was not examined and Dr. Amar Bajaj (PW-1) did not declare this injury to be dangerous to life at any stage. 10. 2. An superficial incised wound 2 cms x .25 cms. over palmer aspect of distal phalanx of right thumb was present." 9. The Radiologist, who x-rayed the injury No. 1 was not examined and Dr. Amar Bajaj (PW-1) did not declare this injury to be dangerous to life at any stage. 10. Irrespective of the fact that the nature of injuries is not necessarily to be examined while holding the respondent guilty under Section 307 Indian Penal Code but it requires that the act must be done with such an intention or knowledge or under such circumstances that if the death be caused by that act, the offence of murder will emerge. In the present case, the necessary contributes to constitute the offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code are not made. No evidence has been led in order to establish if the accused had requisite intention to commit murder of the injured. 11. Out of the two injuries suffered by him one is superficial incised wound over palmer aspect of distal phalanx of right thumb was present. Dr. Amar Bajaj (PW-1) opined vide opinion Ex. PE-1 that the injury No. 1 was dangerous to life on the basis of the x-ray report, yet the Radiologist, who x-rayed the injuries had not been examined. Therefore, the opinion given by Dr. Amar Bajaj (PW-1) could be of no avail. The reference, if any can be made to a judgment titled as Santoo v. State, 1977 Crl.L.J. (Notes) 2 wherein it was observed as under : "An x-ray report of the injury caused to the complainant was prepared by A. Prosecution did not produce A before the Court. It was not suggested that A was either dead or not available. A supplementary report was prepared by B on the basis of the x-ray report prepared by A. It was held that As report was inadmissible in evidence. So also the evidence of B based on his supplementary report prepared on the basis of the x-ray report of A was also inadmissible in evidence." 12. Similarly, in this case also, the report Ex. PE-1 having been given by Dr. Amar Bajaj (PW-1) on the basis of the x-ray report had not been proved at all by its author, the same is liable to be taken out of consideration. 13. Similarly, in this case also, the report Ex. PE-1 having been given by Dr. Amar Bajaj (PW-1) on the basis of the x-ray report had not been proved at all by its author, the same is liable to be taken out of consideration. 13. It also deserves to be noticed that the depth of the injury has not been given by Dr. Amar Bajaj (PW-1), therefore, in the wake of the aforesaid circumstances the injury No. 1 is rendered simple for which the respondent has been punished. Even otherwise, in the absence of the proof of any intention to commit murder and attempt made pursuant thereto, the accused could not be said to have committed the offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code. As regards the offence under Section 452 Indian Penal Code is concerned, the occurrence took place in the school, therefore, the same being public place the provisions of Section 452 Indian Penal Code are not attracted. Consequently, we find no perversity suggesting interference in the impugned judgment by this Court. In view of the above observations made heretofore, we do not see any merit in the appeal. Resultantly, the same fails and is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.