Allahabad High Court
Prem Narain Dubey vs State Of U.P. on 14 August, 2025
Author: Salil Kumar Rai
Bench: Salil Kumar Rai
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Judgment reserved on: 18.07.2025
Judgment delivered on: 14.08.2025
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:138644-DB
Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3557 of 2010
Appellant :- Prem Narain Dubey
Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Lakhan Deobanshi,Dipanshu Kushwaha,Chandan Yadav,Krishna Kumar.
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Hon'ble Sandeep Jain,J.
Per: Sandeep Jain, J.
1. This criminal appeal has been filed by the convicted accused Prem Narain Dubey against the judgment and order dated 23.03.2010 and 25.03.2010 passed by Sri Yogesh Kumar, Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act)Act, 1989, Fatehpur in Special Trial No.72 of 2003 (State of U.P. vs. Prem Narain Dubey), arising out of Case Crime No.112 of 2002, P.S. Jafarganj, District Fatehpur, whereby he has been convicted under Section 326 I.P.C. read with Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment along with payment of fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default, to further undergo simple imprisonment of two months.
2. Relevant facts for the disposal of this criminal appeal are that an application (Ex.Ka-1 at the trial) was given by Bajrangi @ Patter(PW-2 at the trial), son of injured eye witness Asharfi Lal (PW-1 at the trial) with the averments at police station Jafarganj, District Fatehpur, on 8/7/2002 that accused- appellant Prem Narain Dubey was trying to establish illicit relations with his wife Smt. Rajkumari (PW-3 at the trial) for quite some time, they were objecting to it but, he was adamant. Yesterday, in the night of 07.07.2002, he and his wife Rajkumari were lying on the roof of their house and close to them, on the outside, his father Asharfi Lal (PW-1 at the trial) was lying. At about 11:30 p.m., accused Prem Narain Dubey arrived at his house and told his father that "he was creating hurdles between him and Rajkumari, now he will see him" and after saying this, he poured acid on his father, resulting in burn injuries on his father's face, eyes and body. When they raised alarm, the accused fled. This incident was also witnessed by Raja Ram. They identified the accused Prem Narain Dubey in torch light. Due to fear of accused and non-availability of transport, he could not lodge the first information report in the night itself. First informant alongwith his injured father, went to the police station, Jafarganj on 8/7/2002 for lodging the first information report.
3. The application Ex.Ka-1 was scribed by Rajesh Kumar. On the basis of this application, first information report regarding the above incident was registered on 08.07.2002 at 16:05 hours, being Case Crime No.112 of 2000, under Section 326 I.P.C, 3(1)(X), 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, at police station Jafarganj, District Fatehpur against the accused and the investigation of the case was handed to Circle Officer Ram Raman Bahadur (PW-4 at the trial).
4. S.I. Raj Gopal Sharma took the semi burnt mattress, on which Asharfi Lal was lying, and ''gamcha'' of Asharfi Lal into possession on 8.7.2002 and a recovery memo was prepared, which was proved as Ex.Ka-2 during trial.
5. Injured Asharfi Lal (PW-1 at the trial) was examined on 08.07.2002 at 5:12 p.m., at C.H.C., Bindki, District Fatehpur by Dr. Anil Kumar Gupta (PW-5 at the trial), who noted the following injuries on the body of Asharfi Lal :-
"Acid burn injury involving face, neck, right upper limb, front of chest, part of abdomen, part of right thigh."
In the opinion of the Doctor, this injury was caused by acid, which was grievous in nature and its duration was about one and a half - two days. The injury report is Ex.Ka-7 at the trial.
6. The investigation was completed by Investigating Officer Ram Raman Bahadur (PW-4 at trial), who submitted charge sheet against the accused-appellant Prem Narain Dubey, under Section 326 I.P.C. and 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, which is Ex.Ka-4 at the trial, on which cognizance was taken by the court below.
7. The trial court framed charge against accused Prem Narain Dubey, under Section 326 I.P.C. and 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act on 20.01.2004, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
8. During trial, the prosecution examined the following witnesses, who proved the following documents/material objects:-
S.No.
Witnesses
Document proved
1.
Asharfi Lal (injured witness) examined as PW-1
Not proved any document.
2.
Bajrangi,1st Informant, examined as PW-2
Proved the application given at the police station as Ex.Ka-1.
3.
Smt. Rajkumari, wife of 1st informant examined as PW-3
Not proved any document.
4.
Retired Dy.S.P Ram Raman Bahadur, I.O., examined as PW-4
(i)recovery memo of semi burnt mattress and ''gamcha'' of injured Asharfi Lal as Ex.Ka-2.
(ii) site plan of the spot of occurrence as Ex.Ka-3.
(iii) charge sheet against the accused as Ex.Ka-4.
(iv)check F.I.R. as Ex.Ka-5 and carbon copy of the G.D. entry No.17 time 16:05 hours dated 08.07.2002 as Ex.Ka-6.
5.
Dr. Anil Kumar Gupta, examined as PW-5
The injury report of injured Asharfi Lal as Ex.Ka-7.
9. Asharfi Lal (PW-1) deposed in his examination-in-chief that the incident took place about two years back at 11:30 p.m. when he was lying on a cot near the door of his house. He was lying on a mattress when accused Prem Narain came with a mug containing acid, who was seen and identified by him in torch light. The accused threw the acid from the mug, on his face and chest, due to which he felt a burning sensation. His face, chest and eye got burnt, rendering him visually impaired. The accused was trying to establish illicit relations with his daughter-in-law Rajkumari. He prevented the accused from doing so and due to this, the accused threw acid on him. His son Bajrangi @ Patter, took him to the police station on a bullock cart, the next day and he was examined in Bindki Hospital, thereafter, he was taken to hospital at Fatehpur. In the incident, the cot and mattress also got burnt from acid. At the time of the incident, his son and daughter-in-law were lying on the roof, in close proximity. He raised an alarm upon which many people from the village arrived, whom he couldn't recognize because he was in severe pain.
10. PW-1 deposed in cross-examination that his son Bajrangi @ Patter used to work with accused Prem Narain Dubey. He was told by Bajrangi and his daughter-in-law that in Kudauli, there was some dispute regarding monetary transactions. He denied the suggestion that due to the above dispute, PW-2 had falsely implicated the accused. He further deposed that at the time of the incident he was lying outside the hut (Chhappar) but his son, daughter-in-law and grandchildren were sleeping inside the hut (Chhappar). At the time of the incident, the construction of his house was complete. Only 15-20 days back, his son and daughter-in-law had arrived from Kudauli. That day he had gone to sleep after having dinner at 5:00 - 6:00 p.m.. The incident took place 3-4 hours after he went to sleep. It was quite dark in the night, when he felt the burning sensation in his body only then, he raised an alarm, thereafter, who(people) came, he did not knew. Since he was in pain, he did not remember, after how much time, they arrived. Person who threw acid on him, fled just after he raised an alarm, but, he saw the person, prior to the incident, in torch light. He went to sleep with two cell torch and upon hearing footsteps, he lit the torch, but the moment he lit the torch, the person threw acid upon him. The moment he lit the torch, he saw a mug in the hands of the accused, and in the same torch light, his son had also seen the accused Prem Narain Dubey. He was not taken for treatment in the night because of fear. He remained there till 6:00-7.00 AM. Firstly, he went to the police station, alongwith his son and nephew, whose name he cannot remember, alongwith other relatives. He went in a bullock cart to the police station and reached there at 04:00 PM. The police station is at a distance of about 10 Kos. He was sent with a police constable to Bindki Hospital, in a tempo and reached there at about 06:00 PM, where he was examined, and from there, he was sent to Fatehpur. He is illiterate, as such, he can only estimate the time. The report was lodged by his son and nephew. His nephew Rakesh was called by his son on telephone. The SHO had seen him in the vehicle, thereafter, the report was lodged. He could not see. He denied the suggestion that the character of his daughter-in-law was not good. He also denied that his daughter-in-law was having illicit relations with several persons. He also denied that due to family enmity, he has falsely implicated the accused. He denied the suggestion that no such incident occurred.
11. PW-2 Bajrangi, the first informant, deposed in his examination-in-chief that he knew accused Prem Narain prior to the incident. The incident took place about four years back, at 11:30 PM. The accused tried to establish illicit relations with his wife Raj Kumari. In the night of the incident, he, his wife Raj Kumari were sleeping beneath the Chhappar and his father Asharfi Lal was sleeping outside, then at 11:30 PM, accused Prem Narain arrived at his house, and said to his father that why he(father) was creating hurdles between him and Raj Kumari. The accused also threatened his father. They were witnessing this, then, all of a sudden, accused threw acid on his father, due to which his father's face and eyes were scorched. On their alarm, Raja Ram and other villagers came. He saw the accused in torch light. Since no means of transport was available, and also because, he was afraid of accused, he could not take his father to the police station in the night, who was taken the next day by him and his wife, in a bullock cart. He got the tehrir scribed from Rajesh Kumar. This witness proved the application given at the police station Jafarganj, on the basis of which FIR was registered in this case, as Ex.Ka-1. He further deposed that after registration of FIR, his father was examined in hospital at Bindki and thereafter, he was referred to a hospital in Fatehpur, where he was also treated. The accused Prem Narain was also identified by this witness in dock, during his testimony in Court.
12. PW-2 deposed in his cross-examination that he saw the accused from a distance of 20 hands, at that time he was lying on a cot and was having a two cell, white colour torch of Jeep(brand). He had shown that torch to the I.O. in which he had witnessed the incident, but that was not taken by the I.O. in his possession. He remained in the hospital for about 5 days with his father and during this period, he was enquired about the incident by police personnel. Just after the incident, his father was speaking coherently. He went to the police station the next day on a bullock cart, with his wife, his father and relative Rajesh. They reached the police station at 03:00 PM. He dictated the application to Rajesh at his(PW-2) house. At the time of the incident, his father was wearing full sleeve 'baniyan' and 'lungi' of white colour. These clothes were acid inflicted, which were shown to the I.O., who took them in his possession. Due to acid, the 'baniyan' was burnt and the remaining unburnt portion was taken by the police. The 'baniyan' was burnt from the front. Holes were caused in the 'tehmed', but it was not taken by the police. His father was lying on a white mattress, which was also burnt by acid, the burnt portion of which was cut and taken by the police. The cot was also burnt by acid, but it was not taken by the police. The police took bandh(ropes). At the time of incident, he was lying on a cot, with his wife and his father was lying on a cot, at a distance of about 5 hands towards west, on a Kharanza. At that place no lantern was burning. He had four children, who were at the time of incident, lying on a cot inside the house. His father was aged about 60-70 years, who could not see in the night. He used to give food to his father, because his mother had died long back. At the time of the incident, his mother was not alive. He used to take his father in the night, for attending the call of nature and due to this, he used to lie on his cot. He had never done labour with accused Prem Narain, who is a mason. He denied the suggestion that he had not witnessed the incident and had falsely implicated the accused.
13. The first informant's wife Smt. Raj Kumari PW-3 deposed in her examination-in-chief that she knew accused Prem Narain, who also knew her. Her husband Bajrangi used to do labour work. The incident took place about 6 years and two months back. She and her husband had gone to village Kudauli for doing labour, where accused Prem Narain used to work as mason. Her husband began to do labour with accused Prem Narain. The accused used to visit her house and while visiting her house, looked at her with evil eyes and was trying to outrage her modesty. She told this to her husband, who took her to Pandeypur, where she began to live with her father-in-law Asharfi Lal, but, accused started visiting her father-in-law's house also, who was told by Asharfi Lal, not to visit his house, then accused had told Asharfi Lal that he should not create hurdle between him and Raj Kumari. At the time of the incident, she and her husband were lying on the roof of their hut and her father-in-law was lying outside the hut, then at about 11:30 PM accused Prem Narain came to Asharfi Lal and told him not to stop him from visiting. Her father-in-law told the accused not to visit, then accused told him not to come in between him and Raj Kumari. On hearing this conversation, she and her husband woke up and in the light of a two cell torch, her husband saw the accused from the roof, and at that moment, the accused poured acid from a mug, on her father-in-law and fled. Due to acid, Asharfi Lal's eyes and the whole body was burnt. They raised alarm on which, Raja Ram and other neighbours arrived. They could not take her father-in-law in the night and took him, the next day, at 10:00 A.M. by bullock cart to Fatehpur.
14. PW-3 deposed in her cross-examination, that since her marriage, her father-in-law resided with them, because prior to her marriage, her mother-in-law died. At the time of the incident, her father-in-law was lying on a cot, beneath the roof. She further deposed that there was no permanent ladder to climb on the roof on which she and her husband were lying at the time of the incident. They used bamboo ladder for climbing on the roof. Two cots were lying on the roof. She along with her children were lying on one cot and on another, her husband was lying. At the time of the incident, her father-in-law was wearing paijama and kurta. A mattress was lying on the cot, on which her father-in-law was lying. The clothes of her father-in-law were burnt. Pieces of cloth were taken into possession by the police. She claimed that her husband was having a two cell torch at the time of the incident, which was shown to the Investigating Officer. She also deposed that they closed the door of the house at about 9:00 p.m. and proceeded to the roof, for sleeping and her father-in-law, was lying alone on a cot, below the roof, and at the time of the incident, there was no moonlight, and it was dark. She further deposed that she saw the accused when he was fleeing, after throwing acid, who was carrying it in a 3 litre plastic container, which was not thrown at the spot, but taken away by him. According to her, the accused was wearing kurta paijama at the time of the incident, but she could not tell its colour. She further disclosed that accused used to visit her house, with her husband, due to work of mason. Her husband also used to work as labour, with the accused. She denied the suggestion that neither the accused threw acid on her father-in-law nor she saw the incident. She also denied the suggestion that accused had not misbehaved with her.
15. Ram Raman Bahadur PW-4, Investigating Officer, proved the investigation of this case. This witness took into possession the semi burnt mattress and 'gamcha' of injured Asharfi Lal on 08.07.2002 and proved its recovery memo as Ex.Ka-2 during trial. This witness also proved the site plan of the spot of occurrence as Ex.Ka-3, the check F.I.R. as Ex.Ka-5, the carbon copy of the G.D. entry No.17 time 16:05 hours dated 08.07.2002 as Ex.Ka-6 and after completing the investigation, submitted charge sheet against the accused, which was proved as Ex.Ka-4. He admitted in cross-examination, that he had neither taken any object into possession from the spot of occurrence nor saw the torch, in whose light, Bajrangi identified the accused. He had also not seen the mattress on which Asharfi Lal was lying at the time of the incident. He had neither seen any torch nor taken it into his possession. He admitted that PW-3 had not told him that, she, her husband and children were lying on the roof of their house and they saw the incident from there. He further stated that he was told by Bajrangi and Rajkumari that they saw the incident from below the roof, and Asharfi Lal was also lying below that roof.
16. Dr. Anil Kumar Gupta PW-5 proved the injury report of Asharfi Lal as Ex.Ka-7 during trial. He deposed that he had found acid burn injuries on the face, neck, right arm, chest, on a part of abdomen, right thigh, which were serious in nature, which were about one and a half - two days old. He further opined that these injuries could have been inflicted on 07.07.2002 at about 11:30 p.m., by acid. In cross-examination he deposed that due to the acid burns, the skin of the wound of injured died, but he admitted that, he had not mentioned this, in the injury report. He has mentioned that the injuries were caused due to acid burn on the basis of his experience. He admitted that, there could be a variation of eights hours in the duration of injury, on both ends. He further admitted that he had not referred the injured for treatment.
17. The accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. admitted that he is Brahmin by caste, but denied the prosecution story and stated that he was falsely implicated due to enmity.
18. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submitted that at the time of the alleged incident the injured witness Asharfi Lal was sleeping and some unidentified persons threw acid on him. The appellant later on was falsely implicated due to enmity. He further submitted that PW-2 Bajrangi and PW-3 Smt. Rajkumari were also sleeping at the time of the incident, as such, they had not witnessed the incident. Learned counsel further submitted that it was pitch dark at the time of the incident, and since Asharfi Lal was blind prior to the incident, he could not have seen and identified the culprits. Learned counsel further submitted that there was no motive on the part of the accused, to commit such crime. There is no medical evidence on record to prove that due to this incident, Asharfi Lal lost his eye sight, as such, the injuries suffered by him, were not grievous. Learned counsel lastly submitted that the prosecution failed to prove that the offence was caused only because the injured belonged to SC/ST caste, as such, the ingredients of offence under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act are not proved and as such, the trial court committed illegality in convicting the accused for offence under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act and sentencing him to suffer life imprisonment. Learned counsel submitted that the accused-appellant has already undergone about 19 years in prison, which is excessive in the facts and circumstances of the case, and if this Court is of the opinion, that the offence was indeed committed by the accused-appellant, then, the sentence imposed on the appellant by the trial court, be reduced to the period already undergone and he be set at liberty. With these submissions, it was prayed that the criminal appeal be allowed.
19. Learned A.G.A. submitted that the prosecution story is reliable. Asharfi Lal (PW-1) is an injured witness, who identified the appellant at the time of the incident and also proved the incident in court. At the time of the incident, PW-2 and PW-3 were also present, who are the son and daughter-in-law of PW-1. Learned A.G.A. further submitted that the appellant was trying to establish illicit relations with PW-3, to which her husband PW-2 and father-in-law PW-1 objected, but the appellant was unrelenting, and in order to remove the hurdle in his relationship with PW-3, the appellant committed this crime. Learned A.G.A. further submitted that PW-1 has stated in his testimony, that he cannot see after the incident. Besides this, due to acid burn injury, he suffered permanent disfiguration of face, which is a grievous injury as per Section 320 I.P.C., as such, the appellant has committed the offence of causing grievous injury to PW-1. He further submitted that the appellant failed to prove any enmity on the part of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, so as to falsely implicate him. He further submitted that in the circumstances of the case, the F.I.R. could not be lodged immediately after the incident. The police also recovered the burnt mattress and 'gamcha' of Asharfi Lal from the spot. Learned A.G.A. submitted that the trial court has not committed any illegality in convicting the accused-appellant. With these submissions, it was prayed that the criminal appeal be dismissed.
20. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record of the trial court.
21. From the perusal of the evidence of injured witness Asharfi Lal PW-1, first informant Bajrangi PW-2 and Smt. Rajkumari PW-3, it is evident that accused Prem Narain Dubey was trying to establish illicit relations with PW-3, who is the wife of PW-2 and daughter-in-law of PW-1. This fact was known to PW-1 and PW-2, who objected to it, but accused was unrelenting. It is also evident from the evidence of PW-3, that her husband PW-2 used to work as a labour with accused, who worked as mason and, as such, the accused used to visit her house but, whenever the accused visited her house, he looked at her with evil intent and always searched for an opportunity to outrage her modesty. PW-3 specifically mentioned that she had told this to her husband PW-2 and because of this, PW-2 had taken her to village Pandeypur and thereafter, she began residing with her father-in-law PW-1, but the accused was unrelenting and he still continued to visit her father-in-law's house, and this was objected to by PW-1. PW-2 also corroborated the evidence of PW-3 and deposed in his examination-in-chief that the accused wanted to establish illicit relations with his wife PW-3.
22. We are of the opinion that the prosecution succeeded in proving that accused wanted to establish illicit relations with Rajkumari PW-3, to which PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 objected, but the accused persisted with it, and always searched for an opportunity to outrage the modesty of PW-3. From the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 it is also proved that since PW-1 Asharfi Lal was objecting to the illicit relationship between accused and PW-3 and was creating hurdles in it, as such, the accused was annoyed with it and somehow wanted to remove PW-1, so that, he could freely establish illicit relationship with PW-3.
23. We are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has successfully proved the motive of the commission of offence, by accused.
24. From the evidence of injured witness PW-1, it is proved that on the day of the incident at about 11:30 PM, he was lying on a cot, outside the hut, then accused arrived and threw acid on him, because he (Asharfi Lal) was objecting and creating hurdles in establishing illicit relations with his daughter-in-law PW-3. PW-1 further proved that he was awake at the time of the incident and just prior to the incident, he heard the sound of foot steps of someone and, as such, had lighted his torch and in the torch light, before the commission of offence, identified the accused, who was carrying the acid in a mug and thereafter, the accused threw acid on him, resulting in burn injuries on his face, chest, eyes, etc. He further proved that due to acid, he felt burning sensation and lost his eye sight. PW-2 and PW-3 also proved that they saw the incident, in torch light. PW-2 and PW-3 further proved that before throwing acid on PW-1, accused said to PW-1 that why he was creating hurdles in between him and Rajkumari and also threatened PW-1. PW-3 proved that on hearing the above conversation, she and her husband awoke and then they saw the accused in the torch light, who was carrying acid in a mug, which he threw on PW-1 and fled.
25. From the evidence of Dr. Anil Kumar Gupta PW-5, it is proved that Asharfi Lal PW-1 suffered acid burns on his face, neck, right arm, chest, abdomen and right thigh. This witness proved the injury report of PW-1 as Ex. Ka-7 and also proved, that the above injuries were caused by acid, which could have been inflicted at 11:30 PM on 07.07.2002.
26. PW-5 also proved that the acid burn injuries suffered by PW-1 were of serious nature. Although, there is no medical report on record to prove that PW-1 lost his eye sight, due to the acid burn injury caused to his eyes, but PW-1 stated in his examination-in-chief that after the incident, he lost his eye sight and he can not see now. Even if, it is assumed that PW-1 did not loose his eye sight in the incident, judicial notice can be taken of this fact, that the acid injuries on the face of PW-1, must have caused permanent disfiguration of his face, which also falls within the ambit of serious injury defined in Section 320 I.P.C.
27. In view of this, it is proved that, in the incident, PW-1 suffered serious injuries on his face, which were caused by acid, resulting in permanent disfiguration of his face.
28. From the perusal of the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, it is proved that the incident took place at about 11:30 PM on 07.07.2002 but the FIR regarding this incident was got registered at Police Station Jafarganj on 08.07.2002 at 16.05 hours. PW-1 and PW-2 proved that due to non availability of means of transport and due to fear of accused, they could not go to the police station in the night of the incident and they took PW-1 in the next morning, on a bullock cart, to the police station. PW-1 stated in cross-examination that he reached the police station by bullock cart at 04:00 PM and from there, he was sent with a Constable to a hospital in Bindki. He went there by tempo and reached there at about 06:00 PM, where he was examined, but referred to Fatehpur.
29. Similarly, PW-2 deposed in cross examination that he, his wife PW-3, PW-1 and a relative Rajesh reached the police station at about 03:00 PM by a bullock cart and there he had given an application scribed by Rajesh, at his(PW-2's) house. PW-2 further proved that Rajesh arrived in the village at about 10:00 AM on 08.07.2002 and thereafter, Ex. Ka-1 was scribed by him. In the FIR, the distance of police station from the spot is mentioned to be about 18 KM.
30. It is proved that the incident took place around midnight and at that time, no means of transport was available and further, due to fear of accused, PW-2 waited till morning. It is also evident that since PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 were illiterate, they could not have written the application, as such, PW-2 called Rajesh, who arrived in the village at 10:00 AM on 08.07.2002. and thereafter, scribed Ex. Ka-1. Thereafter, they all went by bullock cart to the police station and got the FIR registered.
31. We are of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no inordinate and deliberate delay in lodging the first information report by PW-2.
32. During investigation, the I.O. PW-4 also recovered the semi burnt mattress and 'gamcha' of injured PW-1 on 08.07.2002. The recovery memo of these item was proved as Ex. Ka-2 by PW-4, during trial.
33. From the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, it is proved that the incident took place just outside the house of Bajrangi PW-2. We are of the opinion that, there is no dispute regarding the place of occurrence.
34. We have perused the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3, in which there is a minor contradiction, regarding the place, where they were lying at the time of the incident. According to PW-2, he was lying on a cot at a distance of about five hands from PW-1's cot but, according to PW-3 she and her husband were lying on a cot on the roof and PW-1 was lying on a cot, beneath the roof. We are of the opinion, that the above contradiction is not of such nature, so as to discredit the whole testimony of PW-2 and PW-3.
35. It has been vehemently argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the incident was caused by some unknown persons and the accused-appellant has been falsely implicated in the incident, due to enmity.
36. We have carefully considered the above argument of learned counsel but, in the teeth of the credible ocular evidence of injured PW-1, which is corroborated by the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3, we are not convinced that the incident was not caused by the accused. There is nothing material in the cross-examination of the above witnesses, so as to, discredit their whole testimony. There is nothing on record to suggest, that the appellant has been falsely implicated, insofar as the offence of throwing acid on PW-1 is concerned.
37. Before amendment on 26-1-2016, Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, reads as under:-
3(2) Whoever, not being a member of a Schedule Caste or a Schedule Tribe,-
"(v)commits any offence under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more against a person or property on the ground that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine;"
38. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dinesh @ Buddha Vs. State of Rajasthan (2006) 3 SCC 771 has held that the sine qua non for application of Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is that an offence must have been committed against a person on the ground that such person is a member of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It is not the case of the prosecution that the rape was committed on the victim since she was a member of Scheduled Caste. In the absence of evidence to that effect Section 3(2)(v) has no application.
39. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman Vs. State of Maharashtra (2000) 3 SCC 557 has held that to attract the provisions of Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the sine qua non is that the victim should be a person, who belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and that the offence under the Indian Penal Code is committed against him on the basis that such a person belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. In the absence of such ingredients, no offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act arises.
40. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramdas and others Vs. State of Maharasthra (2007) 2 SCC 170 has held that it is not sufficient that if the accused belongs to upper caste and the victim belongs to Scheduled Caste. It is also necessary to prove that offence was committed on the ground of the victim being of Scheduled Caste. No such allegation has been made in the FIR that the offence was committed because the victim belonged to the Scheduled Caste nor there is any such evidence on record. Thus, the conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 cannot be sustained. The fact that the victim was a Scheduled Caste, by itself is not a sufficient ground to bring the case within the purview of Section 3(2)(v) of the Act.
41. In this case, it is true that the injured PW-1 Asharfi Lal belongs to Scheduled Caste 'chamar' community and the accused belongs to upper caste 'Brahmin' community and it is also true, that the accused knew the injured PW-1 prior to the incident.
42. We are of the considered opinion that the prosecution failed to prove that acid was only thrown by the accused on Asharfi Lal (PW-1) because Asharfi Lal belonged to Scheduled Caste 'chamar' community. From the analysis made herein before, it is proved that accused was trying to establish illicit relations with PW-1's daughter-in-law i.e. Rajkumari (PW-3), to which PW-1 objected and since PW-1 was creating hurdles in establishing this relationship, as such, the accused threw acid on him, in order to make him blind, so that he may not create hurdles in establishing illicit relations with his daughter-in-law (PW-3). In view of this, the trial court committed illegality by convicting the accused for offence under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act. In the proven facts of the case, the accused is only liable to be convicted under Section 326 I.P.C. for causing grievous hurt by acid to Asharfi Lal (PW-1).
43. We find that the accused-appellant has been convicted by the trial court for the offence under Section 326 I.P.C. read with section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment of two months. Since we have held that the conviction of accused under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act is illegal and unwarranted, as such, the accused can only be convicted under Section 326 I.P.C., which is punishable with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either description for a term, which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. At the time of recording his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 24.02.2010, the accused was about 55 years old and now, he is about 70 years old. As per the custody certificate of Central Jail, Naini, Prayagraj, upto 17.07.2025, the accused has undergone 18 years 11 months and 5 days in actual custody and is entitled to a remission of 4 years 9 months and 19 days. According to this certificate, the total sentence undergone by accused, including remission, is 23 years 8 months and 24 days. Keeping in view the old age of appellant and also actual period already undergone by him in jail, which is close to 19 years, we are of the considered opinion that the sentence of life imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs 2,000/- imposed by the trial court be reduced, and instead the accused-appellant be sentenced to suffer the period already undergone by him, in jail. Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be partly allowed in the above terms.
44. The appeal is partly allowed.
45. The conviction of the accused-appellant is altered from Section 326 IPC read with Section 3(2)(v) of S.C./S.T. Act to Section 326 IPC only, and the sentence imposed on him by the trial court, is reduced from life imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/- to the period already undergone by him, in jail. The appellant need not deposit the fine of Rs 2,000/.
46. Since the accused-appellant is in jail, he shall be released from the judicial custody forthwith, if not required, in any other case.
47. The Registrar Compliance is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned trial court and the concerned jail authorities for compliance, forthwith.
48. Office is directed to send back the trial court record.
Order Date:14.08.2025
Jitendra/Himanshu
(Sandeep Jain, J.) (Salil Kumar Rai, J.)
