Suraj vs Nct Of Delhi
2014 Latest Caselaw 1742 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                                  RESERVED ON : 27th March, 2014
                                  DECIDED ON : 1st April, 2014


+                         CRL.A. 1357/2011


       SURAJ                                            ..... Appellant
                          Through :    Mr.Shekh Israr Ahmad, Advocate.


                          Versus


       NCT OF DELHI                                    ..... Respondent
                          Through :    Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP.


        CORAM:
        MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG


S.P.GARG, J.

1. Suraj (the appellant) impugns a judgment dated 17.02.2011

of learned Additional Sessions Judge in case FIR No.277/09 registered at

Police Station H.N.Din by which he was convicted under Section 326

IPC. By an order on sentence dated 19.02.2011, he was awarded RI for

five years with fine `10,000/-.

2. Prosecution case, as revealed in the charge-sheet, was that on

04.07.2009 at about 06.30 p.m. in front of House No.210, Near Qureshi

Masjid, Basti Hazrat Nizamuddin, the appellant-Suraj voluntarily caused

dangerous injuries to Sobha Rani, Prem Wati, Ritu and Thakur Singh by

throwing acid on them with an intention to commit murder. The victims

were medically examined. The Investigating Officer lodged First

Information Report after recording complainant-Ritu's statement (Ex.PW-

1/A). Statements of witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded.

After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed under Section

307 IPC against the accused; he was duly charged; and brought to trial.

The prosecution examined ten witnesses to establish appellant's

involvement in the crime. In 313 statement, the appellant pleaded false

implication and came up with the plea that acid was thrown by him after

he was inflicted injuries on head by a lathi by his sister-in-law-Sobha

Rani. He did not examine any defence witness. The trial resulted in his

conviction under Section 326 IPC. It is significant to note that the State

did not challenge his acquittal under Section 307 IPC.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined

the file. Appellant's counsel urged that the injuries inflicted to the victims

were the result of grave provocation when Suraj was hit/inflicted injuries

by a lathi on his head. No cross-case was registered against the assailants.

The victims are his close relations and intended to grab his property.

They have succeeded in grabbing one jhuggi after his detention in jail.

Prayer was made to modify the sentence order as the appellant was not

involved in any criminal case and has suffered custody for about more

than a year. He is unmarried and none else is there to look after his

property/jhuggi. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor urged that the

prosecution witnesses have categorically deposed that acid was thrown at

them intentionally and voluntarily by the appellant without any

provocation.

4. The occurrence took place at around 06.30 p.m. The victims

Sobha Rani, Prem Wati, Ritu and Thakur Singh had sustained burn

injuries due to throwing of acid and were medically examined vide

MLC's (Ex.PW-8/A, Ex.PW-8/B, Ex.PW-8/C and Ex.PW-8/D

respectively) at Safdarjung hospital. The MLCs record their arrival time

at 09.30 p.m. PW-8 (Dr.Monisha) medically examined the victims and

opined the nature of injuries sustained by them as 'dangerous caused by

acid'. Daily Dairy (DD) No.56B about the occurrence was recorded at

06.48 p.m. The investigation was marked to ASI Narender who with HC

B.D.Niwas went to the spot. Rukka (Ex.PW-10/A) was sent for

registering the FIR at 11.30 p.m. after recording statement (Ex.PW-1/A).

Apparently, there was no inordinate delay in lodging the FIR. In the

complaint, Ritu (PW-1) described the incident in detail and disclosed as to

how and under what circumstances Suraj threw acid on her and her

mother-Sobha Rani. When her aunt Prem Wati and brother Thakur

intervened, Suraj also threw acid on them. While appearing as PW-1,

Ritu proved the version given to the police without major variations. She

deposed that on 04.07.2009 at about 06.30 p.m. when she and her mother

were present in the house, the accused-Suraj came and started abusing

them. When her mother objected to that, the accused threatened to deface

her. Thereafter, accused-Suraj went inside his house, brought a bottle

filled with acid and threw it on her mother's breast. He also threw acid on

her which caused burn injuries on her right side face, both the shoulders

and also the front upper portion of chest. When Prem Wati and Thakur

arrived on hearing the noise, the accused threw acid on them also. They

were taken to Safdarjung hospital by her father who was informed on

telephone. The police arrived at the hospital and recorded her statement

(Ex.PW-1/A). In the cross-examination, she admitted that Suraj was her

paternal uncle (chacha) and they all lived in the houses in the same

compound. She was taken to Safdarjung hospital by her cousin in his lap

as she had become unconscious. She denied the suggestion that her

mother and brothers in a quarrel with the accused caused injuries to him

on his head by a lathi and when the accused threatened to inform the

police, someone from the family picked-up the acid bottle and threw

towards him which hit on the wall and the acid splashed on the victims.

PW-3 (Rohit) also implicated Suraj for throwing acid on all of them.

Similar is the testimony of PW-4 (Sobha Rani) and PW-5 (Prem Wati).

Injuries sustained by the victims due to acid are not under challenge. In

313 statement, the appellant admitted that acid was thrown by him due to

grave provocation for causing injuries by a lathi on his head. It was

imperative for the appellant to establish beyond doubt that the injuries

were inflicted whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and

sudden provocation. He, however, did not adduce any evidence to

substantiate his defence. He did not implicate any specific individual who

had inflicted injuries to him on his head by a lathi. No such crime weapon

was recovered. The appellant did not lodge complaint with the police for

causing injuries to him. MLC on record reveals that he was taken to Jai

Prakash Narayan Apex Trauma Centre, AIIMS at 08.15 p.m. and was

medically examined. In the alleged history mentioned therein, it is

recorded that he was given beatings at around 06.00 p.m. in an assault by

people. Suraj did not give any explanation as to what had prompted any

individual/victim to inflict injuries by a lathi on his head. He took

conflicting and inconsistent pleas during trial. In cross-examination of

PWs, he put suggestions that someone from the family had thrown acid on

him, which hit the wall and its splashes caused injuries to the victims. No

such suggestion was put to PW-8 (Dr.Monisha) to ascertain this

possibility. The statements of victims, except PW-2 (Thakur Singh), are

consistent. Despite cross-examination, no material discrepancies emerged

in their statements to disbelieve them. PW-2 (Thakur Singh), however,

did not support the prosecution on all material facts and stated that injuries

were not caused to his mother and sister in his presence and he sustained

burn injuries due to acid when his sister Ritu @ Reshma grappled with

him. Exclusion of his statement would not dilute the cogent and reliable

version given by the other victims. Court observations were recorded

when the victim-PW-1 (Ritu), a young girl of 23 years, showed burn

marks still visible on her face and right shoulder. She even attempted to

show other burn marks on shoulder and upper chest. However,

considering the modesty of a woman, she was not allowed to do so. PW-4

(Sobha Rani) also showed her both hands which still had a scar of burn

injuries during recording of her statement in the court. The photographs

on record demonstrate the gravity of the injuries sustained by the victims

particularly by Ritu and Sobha Rani. The ocular testimony is in

consonance with the medical evidence. The judgment is based upon fair

appraisal of the evidence and findings on conviction need no interference.

5. The appellant was awarded RI for five years with fine

`10,000/-. Nominal roll dated 08.11.11 reveals that the appellant had

suffered incarceration for one year and ten days besides remission for two

months and five days. He had no history of criminal case and was the first

offender. His overall jail conduct was satisfactory. The dispute had

occurred suddenly among the family members. Substantive sentence was

suspended vide order dated 14.11.2011 and the appellant was enlarged on

bail. Nothing has come on record if he misused the liberty or indulged in

any such activity after his release. The victims had sustained burn injuries

to the extent Sobha Rani (15%), Ritu (10%), Thakur Singh (1%) and Prem

Wati (1%). Considering all these circumstances and the fact that the

appellant also sustained injuries on his body, sentence order is modified

and the substantive sentence awarded by the trial court is reduced to RI

for three years with fine `1,000/- and failing to pay the fine to further

undergo SI for fifteen days under Section 326 IPC.

6. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. The

appellant is directed to surrender before the Trial Court on 16.04.2014 to

serve the remaining period of sentence. The Registry shall transmit the

Trial Court records forthwith along with the copy of this judgment.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE April 01, 2014 sa