Pran Nath vs State
2010 Latest Caselaw 1686 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                     Crl.A.No. 165/2005

%                     Date of Decision: 25th March, 2010

#     PRAN NATH                                ..... Appellant
!                     Through:     Mr. V.Madhukar, Adv.


                      versus


$     STATE                                     ..... Respondent
^                     Through:     Mr. Jaideep Malik, APP

*     CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN


      1.    Whether the Reporters of local papers
            may be allowed to see the judgment?               No

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

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


: V.K. JAIN, J. (Oral)

1. This is an appeal against the Judgment dated 3rd

February, 2006 and Order on Sentence dated 07th February

November 2006, whereby the appellant was convicted under

Section 326 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for five

years. He was further directed to pay Rs.15,000/- as

compensation to the injured under Section 357(3) of the Code

of Criminal Procedure. The compensation was directed to be

recovered as arrears of land revenue under Section 421 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. On 17th February, 2004, the injured Rakesh was

admitted in Hindu Rao Hospital with burn injuries on his face,

hands and thighs. On 19 th February, 2004, his statement was

recorded by the Investigating Officer. In his statement to the

IO, the complainant/injured Rakesh alleged that the appellant

Pran Nath was having animosity with him as some of his

customers had started taking milk from him (the complainant).

He further stated that on 17 th February, 2004, at about 4.45

am when he was going to his dairy in Shakti Nagar, the

appellant, who was carrying a plastic jug with him, came close

to him and threw the liquid which he was carrying in the jug,

on him. As a result, he sustained burn injuries on his face

and other parts of his body. He reached up to his dairy in

burnt condition and was taken to Hindu Rao Hospital.

3. During trial, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses in

support of its case. The complainant came in the witness box

as PW-1 and supported the case set up in the FIR. He stated

that on 17th February, 2004 at about 4.45 am, he was going to

Shakti Nagar on his bicycle. When he reached near Silai

Kendra, Kishan Ganj, he noticed the appellant Pran Nath

standing near the wall holding a jug in his hand. The appellant

came close to him and poured the acid on his face. The acid

fell on his entire face, hands and thighs. The complainant

however managed to reach his dairy in the same condition and

was taken to hospital. PW-8 Dr. Sameek Bhatacharya

examined the injured in the hospital vide MLC Ex.PW-8/A and

found burn injuries on his person. PW-9 Anurag Saini proved

the MLC prepared by Dr. Praveen Gupta.

4. In his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the

appellant admitted that he knew the complainant. He,

however, denied having thrown acid on him.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant states that

considering the fact that there has been practically no cross-

examination of the complainant and other facts and

circumstances of the case, he does not dispute his conviction

and only seeks leniency in the matter of the sentence awarded

to him. He has drawn my attention to the report of the

Probationary Officer dated 06th February, 2006 where he

recommended benefit of probation be given to the appellant.

6. Even otherwise, the deposition of the injured, to whom

the appellant, admittedly was previously known, corroborated

by the injuries which he sustained, proves the case of the

prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The burn injuries

cannot be disputed, in view of the MLC of the injured. This is

not the case of the appellant that some other person had

thrown acid on the complainant. The appellant had a motive

to throw acid on the complainant, as he was annoyed with

him, on account of some of the customers having started

taking milk from the complainant. The conviction of the

appellant is therefore maintained.

7. A perusal of the record shows that the appellant was

arrested on 31st May, 2004 and pursuant to the bail granted to

him, his bail bond was accepted on 12th October, 2004. He

thus spent four months and 12 days in custody before he was

granted bail by the Trial Court. The appellant was sentenced

by the Trial Court on 07 th February, 2006. He was not granted

bail during the pendency of the appeal. Therefore, he has

spent more than 4 years, 1 month and 18 days in custody

after sentence was awarded to him. The appellant has,

therefore, already spent 4 ½ years in custody without taking

into consideration the remission earned by him.

8. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances

of the case, including the report of the Probationary Officer

and the period already spent by the appellant in custody, the

period of substantive sentence awarded to the appellant is

reduced to the period already undergone by him.

Crl.A. 165/2005 stands disposed of.

One copy of this Judgment be sent to the appellant

through Jail Superintendent.

The Record of the Trial Court be sent back with a copy of

the judgment.

(V.K.JAIN) JUDGE MARCH 25, 2010 bg