Yashpal @ Mukesh @ Chattoo vs State
2009 Latest Caselaw 4891 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                      Judgment Reserved on: 26th November, 2009
                       Judgment Delivered on: 30th November, 2009

+                            CRL. A. 597/2008

       YASHPAL @ MUKESH @ CHATTOO       ...Appellant
                Through: Ms.Purnima Sethi, Advocate

                                      Versus
       STATE                                         ....Respondent
                       Through:       Mr.M.N.Dudeja, Advocate

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

     1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be
        allowed to see the judgment?

     2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?               No

     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
        Digest?                                   No


PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

1. Vide impugned judgment and order dated

22.10.2007 the appellant has been convicted for the offence

punishable under Section 326 IPC. Vide order dated

25.10.2007 he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment

for life.

2. While convicting the appellant, who was charged for

the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC, the learned Trial

Judge has returned a finding that the evidence did not

establish that the appellant intended to cause the death of the

complainant Renu. Evidence established that the appellant

intended to cause grievous hurt to Renu by means of a

substance which was deleterious to human body. While

imposing the extreme sentence to undergo imprisonment for

life the learned Trial Judge has noted that Renu had not only

been facially disfigured but had lost vision in both eyes and

was unable to see.

3. As per the prosecution the appellant was angry with

Renu who had refused a marriage proposal from the appellant

and in retaliation, on 15.2.2006, when Renu was tending to

cattle belonging to her father and was on the street, at 11:30

AM the appellant threw acid on Renu. He targeted her face.

As a result of acid burns the whole face of Renu got disfigured.

She suffered acid burn injuries on her chest, abdomen and

hands. She lost vision in both eyes.

4. The physical deformity of Renu has been noted by

the Court while recording the testimony of Renu on 9.11.2006.

It has been noted that Renu aged 17 years was brought to

Court in a veil by her sister and when she lifted the veil the

Court noted that due to acid burn injuries the eye lids of both

eyes had joined and she was rendered totally blind.

5. We need not note the entire evidence led at the

trial for the reason when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

the appellant responded to the last question as to what else

did he have to say by stating:-

"I have been falsely implicated in this case. I am innocent. I and Ms.Renu were having love affair and her brother & father came to know about this fact. They became annoyed and they threatened me not to meet with her and threatened to take my life. I had tattooed the name of Renu on my hand. Her brother saw me alongwith Renu talking to her on the date of incident and got annoyed and in a fit of anger threw acid upon me but I saved and the acid fall upon Renu. I also sustained burn injuries on my hand in the process."

6. It is apparent that Renu‟s brother who was

examined by the prosecution as PW-1 namely Rahul Sharma

was present when the unfortunate incident of Renu being

burnt with acid took place. The appellant has himself so

stated but has further alleged that it was Renu‟s brother who

threw acid at the appellant who saved himself and the acid fell

on Renu. Thus, the fate of the appellant would hinge on the

testimony of Rahul Sharma, the brother of Renu and Renu

herself.

7. Before noting the testimony of Rahul Sharma and

Renu, we may note that pertaining to the incident which took

place at 11:30 AM information was received at the police

station when DD No.23B was recorded and was handed over to

SI Virender Singh Punia PW-13 who accompanied by

Const.Devender Kumar PW-4 left for the place of the incident

and therefrom to G.T.B.Hospital where he recorded Renu‟s

statement Ex.PW-2/A and after making an endorsement

Ex.PW-13/A thereunder forwarded the same at 1:45 PM for FIR

to be registered. It is apparent that Renu‟s statement which

has formed the basis of the FIR was registered promptly

without giving much time to Renu to fabricate the facts.

8. As deposed to by SI Virender Singh Punia PW-13, a

bottle containing acid and a steel glass was seized by him from

a shelf inside the room occupied by the appellant Yashpal

which were seized by him as recorded in the memo Ex.PW-1/A.

9. The MLC Ex. PW-5/A of Renu proves, as recorded

therein that Rahul Sharma had brought her at G.T.B.Hospital

and she had suffered 30%-35% burns due to a corrosive

substance. The injury was opined to be grievous by

Dr.Sanjeev Arora PW-10 who was working as a Senior Resident

at the said hospital on 28.8.2006 when opinion was obtained

on the MLC of Renu pertaining to the injuries recorded therein.

10. The appellant was apprehended on 18.2.2006 and

was examined at G.T.B.Hospital Shahdara by Dr.Ashok Kumar

PW-12 who prepared the MLC Ex.PW-12/A noting therein that

there was small irregular erythmatous charred lesiun over face

suggestive of sprinkle of corrosive acid as also similar burn

injury over right wrist area.

11. On being cross examined Dr.Ashok Kumar stated

that depending upon the distance between the victim and the

assailant, if the distance is more the possibility of the acid

coming on one‟s own body is remote, but if the distance is less

or the victim tries to save himself, the possibility of the

assailant sustaining the injuries as noted by him was possible.

12. Renu PW-2 deposed that the appellant was a tenant

under her father and on 15.2.2006 threw acid on her face and

ran away. We note that this is her statement recorded by SI

Virender Singh Punia i.e. the statement Ex.PW-2/A. She denied

the suggestion that her brother Rahul threatened the accused

who was talking to her when the incident took place and it was

her brother who threw acid towards the accused, but the same

fell on her.

13. Rahul PW-1 deposed that he was in his house and

at around 11:15 AM when his sister was bathing buffaloes on

the street she gave a cry and he went out. He saw his sister

injured and accused running away.

14. We note that Rahul has been cross examined with

reference to his being a student and being away to school. We

also note a contradictory line of cross examination adopted by

suggesting to Rahul that it was he who threw acid on the

appellant because he was angry when he saw the appellant

talk to his sister.

15. Learned counsel for the appellant attempted to pick

holes in the testimony of Renu and Rahul and intended to urge

that therefrom she can show that Rahul was not present and

hence could not have seen the appellant run away. Counsel

urged that Rahul was at his school.

16. We are not noting the said alleged discrepancies for

the reason in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the

appellant has admitted Rahul being present. He has stated

that Renu‟s brother was present. That apart, Renu‟s MLC

Ex.PW-5/A records that Rahul had brought Renu to the

hospital. The said document prepared contemporaneously

shows that Rahul, though a student, had not gone to school on

15.2.2006.

17. We may further note that while cross-examining

Rahul, suggestions have been given to him that it was he who

threw acid at the appellant but the same fell on his sister.

18. We conclude that the finding returned by the

learned Trial Judge that Rahul was present in his house when

his sister suffered acid burn injuries is correct.

19. Two issues need to be decided. Whether Rahul, out

of anger, threw acid on the appellant and in the process burnt

his sister is within the realm of possibility and secondly if first

question is answered against the appellant, whether the

sentence imposed is excessive.

20. Two pieces of evidence conclude the issue against

the appellant. The first is the testimony of SI Virender Singh

PW-13 who has clearly deposed that he seized a bottle of acid

and a steel tumbler with some acid inside from the room in

possession of the appellant, seizure whereof was recorded by

him in the memo Ex.PW-1/A. Even Rahul Sharma PW-1 has

deposed that the seizure memo was signed by him and that

the same i.e. the bottle and the tumbler was seized from the

room of the appellant. At this stage we may note that there is

a typographic error in the testimony of PW-1 wherein it is

recorded: „On 15.2.06 in the evening police had recovered one

steel glass, one bottle both containing acid and one knife from

the accused of accused'. It is apparent that the last three

words of the sentence should read: 'room of accused'. The

second evidence is the testimony of Dr.Ashok Kumar PW-12 as

per which the injuries on the person of the appellant could be

result of acid falling on him when he threw the same at the

victim.

21. The fact that a bottle containing acid and a tumbler

having acid therein was recovered from the room of the

appellant is telltale evidence against the appellant.

22. That the appellant absconded after the incident and

was apprehended on 18.2.2006 is further indicative of his

guilt.

23. We would be failing not to note that the burn

injuries on the face and the wrist of the appellant are fairly

superficial. If he was the target as claimed by him we fail to

understand as to how he received fairly simple and superficial

acid burn injuries and Renu received such grievous injuries.

The acid burn injuries on the right wrist of the appellant are

suggestive of the fact that he had the container with acid held

on by the right hand and when he jerked the hand while using

the wrist to throw acid on Renu, some splashes fell on his

wrist.

24. We may note that the two witnesses examined in

defence by the appellant have simply proved that the

appellant was in love with Renu. What turns thereon? Why

not the motive for the reason neither Renu nor her parents

desired that Renu should get married to the appellant.

25. We concur with the finding returned by the learned

Trial Judge that the evidence establishes that the appellant

was the one who threw acid on Renu and ran away.

26. On the quantum of sentence, learned counsel cited

two decisions reported as 2009 (4) SCC 26 State of M.P. vs.

Kashiram & Ors. and 2009 (4) SCC 57 Ram Das vs. State of MP.

27. In the first decision we note that the High Court had

reduced the sentence which was enhanced by the Supreme

Court. We wonder why said decision was cited. In the second

decision sentence was reduced to the period already

undergone pertaining to a conviction for the offence

punishable under Section 324 IPC i.e. the offence of causing

hurt.

28. Offence punishable under Section 324 IPC carries a

maximum sentence of 3 years and noting that the appellant

Ramdas had been litigating for 14 years, noting the agony and

financial sufferings the sentence was reduced to the period

already undergone i.e. 15 months.

29. It is apparent that even the second decision has no

applicability in the instant case where the injury caused is a

grievous injury, so opined to be by Dr.Sanjeev Arora PW-10.

30. Burning of girls with acid on account of the girls

resisting the lecherous advances of street Romeos‟ are

increasing by the day. It is time that such acts are rewarded

with commensurate punishment.

31. Poor Renu, she has to live her life with an ugly face

and deprived of the joys of life. She cannot enjoy the beauty

of nature. She has been rendered totally blind.

32. Under the circumstances we find no infirmity in the

discretion exercised by the learned Trial Judge to inflict the

highest possible sentence for the offence punishable under

Section 326 IPC i.e. imprisonment for life. Instant case

warrants the punishment which has been inflicted. After all, it

is the duty of a Court to pay heed to the society‟s cry for

justice.

33. We find no merit in the appeal which is dismissed.

34. Since the appellant is in jail, copy of the present

judgment and order be sent to the Superintendent, Central Jail,

Tihar for being made available to the appellant.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(SURESH KAIT) JUDGE November 30, 2009 mm / dk