HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD A.F.R. Reserved on 26.10.2015 Delivered on 14.12.2015 Court No. - 53 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2689 of 2013 Appellant :- Veerpal @ Ghurai Respondent :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Arvind Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
1. The present criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 17.5.2013 passed by the Sessions Judge / Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act) in Session Trial No. 358 of 2009 (State Vs. Veer Pal @ Ghurai) arising out of Case Crime No. 534 of 2009, P.S. Talgram, District Kannauj by which trial court has convicted the appellant under Section 326 I.P.C. and sentencing him for 10 years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 15,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo six months additional simple imprisonment.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the first information report was lodged by Bhure Lal on 13.7.2009 stating that the accused Veer Pal @ Ghurai has given his agricultural land to the informant's brother Sushil on Batai. The accused Veer Pal @ Ghurai used to frequently visited the house of his brother on account of which he developed some illicit relationship with the wife of his brother. The said relationship was disliked by the informant and his wife Leelawati and they objected the accused from coming to their house on account of which the accused Veer Pal @ Ghurai bear ill-will. He further stated in the F.I.R. that on 12.7.2009, the informant's wife Leelawati was sleeping outside from the house and the informant was sleeping near her cot and at about 12.00 in the midnight Veer Pal @ Ghurai and Laddu son of Rajaram Katheria had come and have thrown acid on the face of his wife. Then informant, on the alarm raised, woke up and saw that the accused Veer Pal @ Ghurai and Laddu were present near his wife. On the questioning the accused as to why they were standing their, then the accused went away. The informant has witnessed the incident and has also identified the accused. He took his wife for medical treatment to Dr. Subhash at Gursahaiganj in the next morning.
3. The F.I.R. of the incident was registered as Case Crime No. 534 of 2009, under Section 326 I.P.C., P.S. Talgram, District Kannauj at 22-10 hours by informant Bhure Lal which was marked as Ex. Ka-5 and registration of F.I.R. was also endorsed in the G.D. in the concerned police station which is marked as Ex. Ka-6.
4. The medical examination of the injured Smt. Leelawati was performed on 14.7.2009 by Medical Officer New P.H.C. Gursahaiganj at 8 a.m. on the basis of Chitthi Majroobi prepared by the concerned police station. The investigation of the case was carried out and the investigating officer recorded the statement of the witnesses including the injured and prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence and submitted that the charge sheet against the accused Veer Pal @ Ghurai, under Section 326 I.P.C. and 3(2)(V) S.C./S.T. Act which is marked as Ex. Ka-4. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions by the Magistrate and charges were framed against the accused Veer Pal @ Ghurai by the trial court on 9.1.2010, under Section 326 I.P.C. and 3(2)(V) S.C./S.T. Act. The accused denied the charge and claimed their trial.
5. The prosecution in support of his case examined P.W. 1 Bhure Lal, the informant, P.W. 2 Smt. Leelawati, P.W. 3 Sub-Inspector Dhawal Singh Yadav, Investigating Officer, P.W. 4 Dr. K.N. Katiyar, P.W. 5 Circle Officer Hardeo Singh.
6. The statement of accused Veer Pal @ Ghurai was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., who have stated that the false case has been registered against him on account of enmity and his witness also fully deposed against him. He further states that the informant, 15 days prior to the incident has assaulted the accused Laddu and the accused appellant Veer Pal @ Ghurai was a witness of incident on account of which he has been implicated. In defence, the accused have filed list of documents as paper no. 34-B to 35-B/2 and further a true copy of application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Ram Krishna @ Laddu Vs. Bhure and other and further from the defence D.W. 1 Jagdish was also examined.
7. P.W. 1 Bhure Lal, who is the informant of the case has reiterated the prosecution story as narrated by him in the F.I.R. and further stated that he has identified the two accused Laddoo including the appellant Veer Pal @ Ghurai and have identified them in a torch light witnessing that accused Veerpal has thrown acid on the face of his wife and the accused Ram Krishna has caught hold her hands. He has further deposed that the accused Veer Pal @ Ghurai was having illicit relationship with the wife of the brother of informant, namely Sushil. When he and his wife had objected the accused for coming to their house, he was annoyed and has thrown the acid on the face of the wife of the informant. He has proved the F.I.R. as Ex. Ka-1 which was lodged on the basis of written report. He further submitted that on account of throwing of the acid, the face of his wife was burnt and disfigured.
8. P.W. 2 Smt. Leelawati, who is injured and victim of the case has categorically stated before the trial court that it was the accused Veer Pal @ Ghurai, who has thrown acid on her face whereas accused Ram Krishna @ Laddoo had caught hold of her hands. She has identified both the accused and deposed that on account of throwing of acid by the accused her face was burnt and spoiled. She further stated in her statement that on account of acid burn her right eye has been completely burnt and she is not able to see from it. It was also stated by her that her husband was also present at the place of occurrence and he is witness of occurrence. She also deposed that the accused was having illicit relationship with the wife of her Dewar, namely, Sunil and he used to come their house which was objected by her and her husband on account which he was annoyed and she was injured by the accused Veer Pal @ Ghurai by pouring acid on her. She also deposed that the accused Veer Pal @ Ghurai had taken agricultural land on Batai of her Dewar Sushil.
10. P.W. 3 Dhawal Singh Yadav, Sub-Inspector has deposed that he was the first Investigating Officer of the case and he has submitted that on the basis of the written report lodged by the Bhurey Lal on 13.7.2009. He submits that the F.I.R. of the case was registered and he started investigation on 14.7.2009 and recorded the statement of the injured and prepared the site plan at the place of occurrence and the offence under section 3(2)V S.C./S.T. Act was also made out. Hence, the investigation of the case entrusted to Circle Officer Hardeo Singh P.W. 5, who submitted charge sheet against the accused under Section 326 I.P.C. and 3(2)(V) of S.C./S.T. Act
10. P.W. 4 Dr. K.N. Katiyar, has deposed that on 14.7.2009, he was posted as Medical Officer at Gursahaiganj and at 8.00 a.m. in the morning, he had on the basis of Chitthi Mazroobi received from the concerned police station by Constable Sudhar Singh, medically examined the injured Smt. Leelawati and found following injuries on her person :
"Pealing to skin all over the face, multiple scabs are present all over the face. Superficial to deep burn all over the face. Swelling over eyelids, both lips and all over the face present, mucus and water fluid present all over the face. Completely disfigurement of the face. Eyes are completely closed due to swelling."
11. He deposed and he has proved the medical examination report of the injured as Ex. Ka-3. He further submitted that the injured has received acid burn on her face and her face was completely burnt and there was swelling on her eyelids, lips and mucus and water fluid were coming out and her whole face was disfigured and because of swelling her both eyes were completely closed. He further deposed that the injured has received acid burn injuries and has submitted that her injuries were caused about one or two days prior to the incident. In his opinion, the injuries found to be grievous in nature and she was also referred to District Hospital for further medical treatment for her eyes. He denied the suggestion of the defence that victim has received injuries while cooking food as she was patient of epilepsy (Mirgi).
12. P.W. 5 Hardeo Singh, Circle Officer has deposed before the trial court that the accused Veer Pal @ Ghurai belonged to an upper caste and the victim of the crime was belonged to scheduled cast category. Hence, he converted the case under Section 3(2)V S.C./S.T. Act on account of which the investigation was entrusted to him and he has been entrusted on 19.7.2009 from earlier investigating officer. Thus, he submitted charge sheet against the accused persons under Section 326 I.P.C. and 3(2)5 S.C./S.T. Act.
13. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Vikas Rana, learned AGA for the State and perused the material brought on record.
14. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the incident had occurred on 12.7.2009 at 12 p.m. in the night but the first information report about the same was lodged at the police station on 13.7.2009 at 10.10 p.m. and further victim / injured was medically examined on 14.7.2009 at 8 a.m. at P.H.C. Gursahaiganj after about a delay of one day and the delay in lodging the F.I.R. And medical examination of the injured has not been explained by the prosecution. It was further argued that the incident has taken place in the mid night and no source of light has been mentioned and the actual appellants could not be identified by the informant and after due consultation and deliberation, the F.I.R. was lodged on the next day against the appellant. He next argued that the informant's wife was suffering from epilepsy and while she was cooking food in the house, she got an attack of epilepsy on account of which she was burned and appellant was falsely implicated in the present case only on account of inimical relationship with the informant. He submits that the presence of the first informant at the place of occurrence also appears to be doubtful as is evident from the statement of P.W. 2 Smt. Leelawati injured. He further submitted that the maximum sentence awarded to the appellant is 10 years R.I. By the trial court out of which he has already been served out about three years and three months in jail.
15. Learned AGA on the other hand vehemently argued that it is a case of acid throwing on a lady by the appellant. P.W. 2 Smt. Leelawati has deposed before the trial court and identified the appellant who had thrown acid on her face due to which, she received burn injuries on her face and other parts of the body. As per the opinion of the doctor, the injuries found to be grievous in nature. He submits that the trial court has rightly convicted and sentence to the appellant. So far as the delay in lodging the F.I.R. and the medical examination of the victim conducted on 14.7.2009 has been properly explained by the prosecution. The appeal is devoid of merits and be dismissed by this Court.
16. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
17. P.W. 2 Smt. Leelawati is the injured and victim of the crime, on her, acid was thrown by the appellant while sleeping in her house. She has categorically stated before the trial court that she has identified the appellant as she was known to her from before. The medical examination report of the said injured shows that she has received deep burn all over the face and both lips and mucus and water fluid was coming out. There was a complete disfigurement of the her face and eyes were completely closed due to swelling and in the opinion of the doctor, the burn was caused by acid and the injuries were found to be grievous in nature.
18. The P.W. 4 Dr. K.N. Kathariya, who has examined the said injured has also proved her medical examination report as Ex. Ka-3 and has stated that the victim has received acid burn all over the face and her eyes were also completed closed due to swelling. The evidence of P.W. 2 is corroborated by evidence of P.W. 4 Dr. K.N. Kathariya, who has medically examined her. Though, there appears to be some minor contradictions in the statement of P.W. 1 informant and P.W. 2 but taking into account the evidence of P.W. 2 it is crystal clear that it was the appellant, who has thrown acid on the face of the injured victim. Moreover, the appellant had also strong motive to commit the crime as the appellant had taken the agricultural land of the real brother the informant, namely Sushil on Batai and he, thereafter, developed some illicit relationship with the wife of the younger brother of the informant and when same was objected by the husband of the injured and P.W. 2 injured, the appellant did not pay heed to their request and thrown acid on the victim.
19. From the statement of P.W. 1, it is evident that soon after the incident the victim was taken to Dr. Subhash, who was attended and gave medical treatment to her. When her condition further deteriorated, she was taken to PHC Gursahaiganj where Dr. K.N. Katariya was examined her on 14.7.2009. Thus, the delay of one day in lodging the F.I.R. has been explained by the prosecution and it is not fatal to the prosecution case.
20. Thus, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant and finding of conviction and sentence of the appellant by the trial court does not suffer from any irregularity, illegality or perversity.
21. In view of the forgoing discussions, the judgement and order passed by the trial court convicting and sentencing the appellant is hereby upheld. Hence no interference is required by this Court for quashing of the impugned judgement and order dated 17.5.2013 passed by the trial court.
22. The appellant is stated to be in jail as on date, hence he shall serve out the sentence as awarded by the trial court.
23. The appeal lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 14.12.2015 Manoj