Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Narayan Santra vs The State Of West Bengal on 28 March, 2023
Sl. No.1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Joymalya Bagchi
And
The Hon'ble Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta
C.R.A. 39 of 2018
Narayan Santra
-Vs-
The State of West Bengal
For the State : Mr. Neguive Ahmed, ld. A.P.P.
Ms. Trina Mitra
Heard on : 28.03.2023
Judgment on : 28.03.2023
Joymalya Bagchi, J. :-
1.
Appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 13.11.2017
and 14.11.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3 rd Court,
Tamluk in Sessions Trial No.01(11) of 2014 convicting the appellant for
commission of offence punishable under Section 326A of the Indian
Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten
years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-, which was directed to be paid to
the victim for medical expenses.
2. Department has placed a report stating that the appellant is
unwilling to proceed with the appeal. As the appeal has been admitted,
the same requires to be considered and disposed of on merits.
3. Prosecution case as alleged against the appellant is to the effect
that on 05.05.2014 at about 10:00 A.M., there was a quarrel. During the
quarrel, appellant threw acid on the face and body of his brother Kartick
Santra (PW1) herein. Kartick was taken to Pikepari BPHC and thereafter,
to Sadar hospital at Tamluk where he was treated. After being released
from hospital, he lodged written complaint resulting in registration of
Kolaghat Police Station Case No.189 of 2014 dated 10.05.2014 under
Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. In conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed and charge
was framed under Section 326A IPC. In course of trial, prosecution
examined 10 witnesses to prove its case. Defence of the appellant was
one of innocence and false implication.
5. In conclusion of trial, learned trial Judge by the impugned
judgment and order dated 13.11.2017 and 14.11.2017 convicted and
sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid.
6. Nobody appears for the appellant.
7. Mr. Neguive Ahmed, learned Additional Public Prosecutor with
Ms. Trina Mitra appears for the State.
8. PW1 (Kartick Santra) is the de-facto complainant and the victim.
He deposed on 05.05.2014 at about 10:00/10:30 A.M. he had gone to
his parental home to meet his mother. He asked his mother to give him
food. His mother gave him muri. While he was eating muri, his brother
came to the spot and started abusing him. Upon protest appellant went
inside the room and brought a glass like container and threw liquid on
his face and body. PW1 felt a burning sensation and raised hue and cry.
He was taken to Pikepari BPHC. Thereafter, he was referred to Sadar
hospital at Tamluk. He was admitted in hospital for four days. After
being released from hospital, he lodged written complaint. He proved his
LTI on the complaint. He remained unshaken during cross-examination.
9. PW5 (Anjali Santra) mother of Kartick corroborated her son. She
deposed appellant had difficulty in arranging accommodation. Anjali had
permitted him to stay in her house. On the fateful day, Kartick had
come to her house. She had given muri to Kartick to eat. While he was
eating muri, appellant came in a drunken condition and abused Kartick.
When Kartick protested, appellant went inside the room and brought a
glass like container. He threw liquid on the face and body of Kartick.
Kartick suffered burn injuries. He was shifted to Pikepari BPHC.
10. PW4 (Kakoli Santra) is the wife of Kartick. She deposed daughter
of the appellant informed her that the latter had thrown acid on her
husband. Hearing this she proceeded to her mother-in-law's house. On
the way she saw 2/3 local people were bringing her husband to her
house. She took her husband to Pikepari BPHC. Thereafter, he was
shifted to Sadar hospital at Tamluk for treatment. He was in hospital for
four days.
11. PWs.8 and 9 are medical witnesses.
12. PW8 (Dr. Pradipta Manna) treated Kartick at Pikepari BPHC,
Kolaghat. He deposed he examined Kartick Santra with a history of acid
burn on his face and chest committed by his brother viz. Narayan
Santra. He proved the injury report.
13. PW9 (Dr. Suchindran Bandhapadhyay) treated the victim at
Tamluk hospital. He deposed Kartick was admitted on 05.05.2014 with
acid burn injuries on his face and upper chest. 50% of body surface area
was burnt. Eye sight of right eye was diminished.
14. PW10 (SI Manoj Kr. Jha) was the investigating officer. He
arrested the appellant. He seized a bottle containing carbolic acid on the
showing of the appellant. He prepared seizure list (Ext. 5/2). He
collected bed-head ticket and submitted charge sheet.
15. From the aforesaid evidence it appears on the fateful day Kartick
Santra had gone to his parental home to meet his mother. Due to lack of
accommodation his brother Narayan used to stay in the same house.
His mother Anjali gave him muri to eat. While he was eating muri,
Kartick came to the spot and abused him filthily. He also abused his
mother. When he protested, appellant went inside and brought out a
bottle containing liquid. Appellant threw the liquid on the face and body
of Kartick. Kartick felt burning sensation and cried out in pain. Soon
thereafter, he was shifted to Pikepari BPHC and then to Sadar hospital
at Tamluk where he was treated for four days.
16. Kartick's version is corroborated by his mother Anjali (PW5).
Hearing the news his wife Kakoli (PW4) soon came to the spot and
removed him to the hospital.
17. PWs.8 and 9 treated Kartick at Pikepari BPHC and Sadar
hospital at Tamluk. PW8 proved the injury report (Ext.9) and PW9
proved the bed-head ticket (Ext.6/2) of Sadar hospital.
18. The medical evidence corroborates the ocular version of the
victim and establishes the prosecution case beyond doubt.
19. Investigating officer (PW10) also recovered a glass bottle
containing carbolic acid from the place of occurrence.
20. The aforesaid evidence on record proves the prosecution case
beyond doubt.
21. Conviction and sentence of the appellant are upheld.
22. The appeal is accordingly, dismissed.
23. Period of detention suffered by the appellant during investigation,
enquiry and trial shall be set off against the substantive sentence
imposed upon him in terms of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
24. Lower court records along with a copy of this judgment be sent
down at once to the learned trial Court for necessary action.
25. Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to
the parties on priority basis on compliance of all formalities.
I agree.
(Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
akd/PA
