Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/18 vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 26 September, 2025
Page No.# 1/18
GAHC010206752024
2025:GAU-AS:13431
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.A./336/2024
SAMSUL HAQUE
S/O. LATE MUBARAK ALI, R/O. VILL.- TILABARI, P/S. PATHERKANDI,
DIST.- KARIMGANJ, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM.
2:RUKIA BEGUM
D/O. SIRAJ UDDIN
R/O.- VILL.- MAZOR DEFALWAL
P/S.- PATHERKANDI
DIST.- KARIMGANJ
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY, MR. A AHMED,MR. M A
CHOUDHURY,MR. I U CHOWDHURY
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR H R CHOUDHURY(R-2),K MAINUDDIN(R-2),A
S PRODHANI (R-2),S. TALUKDAR(R-2)
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA
JUDGMENT
Date : 26-09-2025
Heard Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. R. Deka, learned
counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. K.K. Das, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam for
the State respondent No.1 and Mr. H.R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
Page No.# 2/18
2. By filing this appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC, the appellant has challenged the
impugned judgment and order dated 16.08.2024 passed in Session Case No. 76/2019,
whereby the learned Sessions Judge, Karimganj convicted the appellant, namely, Samsul
Haque under Section 326 (A) of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for ten (10) years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default simple
imprisonment for one year.
3. The case set up by the prosecution in brief is that as per the FIR, being lodged by the
informant/victim on 17.06.2019, in the night, at about 2:30 a.m., accused Samsul Hoque of
village Tillabari came to their house and called from outside for purchasing a hen and when
the victim came out, accused threw acid on her face and body by a bottle and fled away.
Thereafter, when the victim started screaming as she felt severe burning sensation on her
body, the neighbouring people came to the place of occurrence and took the victim to
Patherkandi Hospital and from there to Silchar Medical College & Hospital, Silchar.
4. After receiving the said FIR, the Officer in Charge, Patherkandi Police Station registered
the same vide Patherkandi P.S. case No. 331/2019, under sections 326(A)/307 IPC.
Thereafter, the investigating officer took up the investigation of the case and after completion
of the investigation submitted the charge sheet under sections 326(A)/307 IPC, against the
accused Samsul Hoque. When the accused entered his appearance, the learned Trial Court
framed charges under Sections 307/326 of the IPC against him, to which he pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. The prosecution, to bring home the charge against the accused has examined as many
as five witnesses including the Medical Officer, Investigating Officer, the informant and the
victim of the case. The defence took the plea of total denial at the time of recording his
statement under Section 313 CrPC and two defence witnesses were also adduced to
substantiate his plea of innocence.
Page No.# 3/18
6. Initially, the charge was framed under Sections 307/326 of the IPC but subsequently, at
the stage of argument, the charge was altered and was accordingly, framed under Sections
307/326A of the IPC, which were read over and explained to the accused to which he
pleaded not guilty.
7. After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the learned
Sessions Judge, Karimganj had passed the judgment and order convicting the
accused/appellant, under Section 326A IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for ten (10) years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, with default stipulation.
8. Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the learned Sessions
Judge, Karimganj had passed the impugned judgment without scrutinizing the evidence on
record in its true perspective and thus came to a perverse finding, convicting the
accused/appellant and hence, the same is liable to be set aside. He further submitted that
there is no incriminating materials at all to justify the conviction of the appellant under
Section 326A IPC and without considering the evidence of both the prosecution witnesses as
well as the defence witnesses, adduced by the parties, the learned Sessions Judge, Karimganj
had passed the impugned judgment and order of conviction which is illegal and arbitrary and
liable to be set aside.
9. Mr. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel further submitted that it is a settled position
of law that the conviction can be based on the evidence of the victim if her evidence is
trustworthy and believable. But in the instant case, there are sufficient contractions in the
evidence of the victim which creates a serious doubt in the veracity of the prosecution case.
Mr. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel particularly emphasized on the fact that it is
alleged that the accused/appellant threw acid to the victim but during the cross-examination
of the PW.1, she stated that she did not see the face of the accused but she knew that it was
the accused/appellant who had thrown acid on her face, as two days prior to the incident, the
accused/appellant threatened her to attack her with acid.
10. More so, the learned Sessions Judge, Karimganj did not appreciate the evidence of
Page No.# 4/18
DW.1 and DW.2 who are related to PW.1/ victim and they categorically stated that the victim
did not tell before them that she has not seen anyone who threw acid on her. But this part of
evidence of DWs, which are vital for the prosecution case was not considered by the learned
Sessions Judge, Karimganj while appreciating the evidence on record. Further, the
prosecution also failed to attribute any motive on the part of these two witnesses i.e. DW.1
and DW.2, who are the brother and sister-in-law of the victim, to depose falsely against the
PW.1. More so, the DW.2 was the cited witness of the prosecution but he did not appear as a
prosecution witness and subsequently he appeared as a defence witness and supported the
case of the defence.
11. Mr. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel also raised the issue that the prosecution
side claim that a bottle and mug, which were used in commission of the offence were seized
in presence of the witnesses but the said bottle and mug were not sent for FSL examination
to verify the finger prints imprinted on those articles.
12. Mr. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel for the accused/appellant raised the
issue of delay in lodging the FIR. As per the FIR, the incident had occurred on 17.06.2019, at
2:30 A.M., when the accused/appellant threw acid on the face and body of the victim. But the
FIR of the incident/case was lodged only on 07.07.2016, with a delay of twenty (20) days and
the delay is not properly explained in the FIR, which also create reasonable doubt in the
veracity of the prosecution case. To substantiate his plea, Mr. Choudhury, the learned Senior
Counsel relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Criminal Appeal
No.2294/2010 ( Sekaran vs. State of Tamil Nadu) and basically emphasized on para 11
of the said judgment, wherein it has been held that if the delay is not satisfactorily explained
and it appears to the court that cause for the delay had been necessitated to frame anyone
as an accused, there is no reason as to why the delay should not be considered as fatal
forming part of several factors to vitiate the conviction. The para 11 of the said judgment
reads as under:
"11. We start with the FIR, to which exception has been taken by the appellant urging that there
has been no satisfactory explanation for its belated registration. It is trite that merely because
there is some delay in lodging an FIR, the same by itself and without anything more ought not
Page No.# 5/18
to weigh in the mind of the courts in all cases as fatal for the prosecution. A realistic and
pragmatic approach has to be adopted, keeping in mind the peculiarities of each particular
case, to assess whether the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR is an afterthought to give a
coloured version of the incident, which is sufficient to corrode the credibility of the prosecution
version. In cases where delay occurs, it has to be tested on the anvil of other attending
circumstances. If on an overall consideration of all relevant circumstances it appears to the
court that the delay in lodging the FIR has been explained, mere delay cannot be sufficient to
disbelieve the prosecution case; however, if the delay is not satisfactorily explained and it
appears to the court that cause for the delay had been necessitated to frame anyone as an
accused, there is no reason as to why the delay should not be considered as fatal forming part
of several factors to vitiate the conviction."
13. Mr. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel further relied on another decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Dilwar Singh vs. State of Delhi reported in
(2007) 12 SCC 641 and emphasized on para 9, 10 and 11 of the said judgment which read
as under:
"9. In criminal trial one of the cardinal principles for the Court is to look for plausible
explanation for the delay in lodging the report. Delay sometimes affords opportunity to the
complainant to make deliberation upon the complaint and to make embellishment or even make
fabrications. Delay defeats the chance of the unsoiled and untarnished version of the case to be
presented before the Court at the earliest instance. That is why if there is delay in either coming
before the police or before the Court, the Courts always view the allegations with suspicion and
look for satisfactory explanation. If no such satisfaction is formed, the delay is treated as fatal
to the prosecution case.
10. In Thulia Kali v. The State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 1973 SC 501), it was held that the delay in
lodging the first information report quite often results in embellishment as a result of
afterthought. On account of delay, the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of
spontaneity, but also danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated
account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation.
11. In Ram Jag and others v. The State of U.P. (AIR 1974 SC 606) the position was explained
that whether the delay is so long as to throw a cloud of suspicion on the seeds of the
prosecution case must depend upon a variety of factors which would vary from case to case.
Even a long delay can be condoned if the witnesses have no motive for implicating the accused
and/or when plausible explanation is offered for the same. On the other hand, prompt filing of
the report is not an unmistakable guarantee of the truthfulness or authenticity of the version of
the prosecution".
14. Mr. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel also raised sufficient material contradictions
Page No.# 6/18
in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. He submitted that as per the FIR, the father of
the victim and the neighbours took her to hospital but while deposing her evidence as PW.1,
she stated that her sister-in-law i.e. DW.2 Jahanara Begum took her to the hospital, as no
male member was present at that time at her residence. On the other hand, the PW.2, the
father of the victim in his cross-examination had stated that he asked his son i.e. the DW.1
Jumil Ahmed took her to the hospital. Thus, the PW.1 and PW.2, the most vital witnesses of
the prosecution contradict each other as to who took the victim/PW.1 to hospital immediately
after the incident. More so, as per the investigating officer/PW.5, he received no prior
information before filing of the FIR and after the FIR, he immediately went to the place of
occurrence, seized the articles which were sent to FSL and he also recorded the statement of
all the witnesses on 08.07.2019. But from the medical report and the evidence of PW.4/ Dr.
Suvajyoti Chakraborty, the injury report was issued on 07.09.2019 and he also admitted in his
cross-examination that he did not examine the victim and only the injury report was issued by
him.
15. Mr. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel also raised the issue that as per the victim,
the accused used mug to throw acid on her but the mug was kept in a bottle which is not at
all possible to keep the mug inside a bottle and to use the mug to throw acid. From her
cross-evidence also it is seen that the mug belongs to her which she used to feed the hen
and accordingly, he submitted that keeping a mug inside the bottle is not at all a believable
statement of the PW.1, which otherwise also creates doubt in the statement of the PW.1.
16. In that context, Mr. K.K. Das, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for
the State respondent No.1 submitted that the learned Sessions Judge, Karimganj had rightly
passed the judgment and order convicting the accused appellant under Section 326A IPC, by
appreciating the evidence on record in its true perspective and hence, there cannot by any
reason to make any interference in the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions
Judge, Karimganj. Mr. Das further submitted that PW.1, the victim could identify the accused
as she could recognize his voice with whom she had talk before opening the door and it is a
fact that immediately on opening the door, the accused/appellant threw the acid on the face
and body which was brought in a mug and a bottle. Mr. Das further submitted that it is not a
Page No.# 7/18
case that the mug was inside the bottle but the accused/appellant carried the bottle with him
and he used the mug to throw acid on the face and body of the victim immediately on her
opening the door in the night of occurrence at about 2:00 A.M. This part of evidence of the
victim regarding her identification of the accused/appellant could not be rebutted by the
defence, though admitted in her cross-evidence that she could not see as to who threw acid
on her.
17. Mr. Das further submitted that the occurrence took place in the early morning, at about
2:00/2:30 A.M. on 17.06.2019 or in the midnight of 16.06.2019, which is the early morning of
17.06.2019. Thus, there cannot be any dispute that the occurrence took place in the early
morning i.e. at about 2:00/2:30 A.M. on 17.06.2019. He further submitted that there is delay
in lodging the FIR but the delay is well explained in the FIR and from the FIR itself it is seen
that the victim lodged the FIR, only after her partial recovery to some extent, as she was not
in a position to lodge the FIR, when acid was thrown on her face and body. Thus, the delay in
lodging the FIR cannot be fatal for the prosecution and that has already been explained by
the victim/informant at the time of lodging the same.
18. Further, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam submitted that the PW.1 also
brought the motive behind the incident as from the testimony of the PW.1 itself, it is seen
that the accused used to taunt her prior to the date of incident and in one occasion, she also
scolded him, when he threatened her that he will attack her with acid. Thus the motive
behind the incident is also well explained by the PW.1/victim, while adducing her evidence.
She also showed the injury marks at the time of recording her evidence and the evidence of
the Doctor also could not be rebutted to the extent of sustaining injury by her. However, he
admitted that in the medical/injury report, there is discrepancy while mentioning the date and
time of treatment, which may be due to inadvertent mistake on the part of the Doctor, while
issuing the report. He further submitted that the evidence of the victim remain consistent in
every stage of her evidence and the injury sustained by her is also not disputed which is
supported by the medical document and there cannot be any reason to disbelieve the victim.
Further he submitted that the other prosecution witnesses also supported the case of the
prosecution and the PW.2/the father of the victim who was also present at the time of the
Page No.# 8/18
incident stated that the accused came to their house at the midnight and called from the
outside saying that he wants to purchase hen, he asked his daughter to attend the call and as
soon as his daughter opened the door, she shouted and fell down and hearing her hue ad cry,
he immediately came there and saw his daughter lying on the floor in a restless condition
shouting and crying out of pain.
19. PW.3 Badrunnessa, who is also the aunt of the victim immediately came to the place of
incident hearing the noise of the victim and saw her lying in an injured condition on the floor.
Thus the PW.3 also supported the prosecution case to the extent that she immediately came
there and saw the victim in an injured condition. Mr. Das accordingly submitted that there
cannot be any reason to make any interference in the judgment and order of conviction
passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karimganj.
20. Mr. H.R. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the informant submitted that the
occurrence took place in the midnight. When the victim opened the door recognizing the
accused, who asked the victim to open the door and immediately on her opening the door, he
threw acid on her face and body for which she sustained 45% burn injury on her face, neck
and other part of her body. He further submitted that the delay in lodging the FIR is also
explained in the FIR, as she lodged the same after her partial recovery and she was not in a
condition to lodge the FIR immediately after the incident due to the acid attack on her. Mr.
Choudhury also submitted that the intention or motive behind the attack is also explained by
the PW.1 in her evidence. Accused/appellant threw the acid on her body with the help of a
mug which was outside of her house, with the acid which he brought in a bottle and the
Investigating Officer also seized both the bottle and the mug at the time of seizure of the
articles. Thus the evidence of the victim as well as other supporting witnesses cannot be
disbelieved and the learned Sessions Judge, Karimganj had rightly passed the order of
conviction and sentence by scrutinizing the evidence on record in its true perspective.
21. Hearing the submission made by the learned counsel for both sides, to arrive at a just
decision, I find that the evidence of prosecution witnesses as well as the defence witnesses
should be scrutinized carefully.
Page No.# 9/18
22. From the medical evidence of the Doctor, it is seen that the victim sustained 40 to 45%
chemical burn injury on body surface including face, neck, trunk and other parts of the body
and the Doctor i.e. the PW.4 also opined that the injuries are found to be grievous in nature
caused by corrosive agent and at the time of examination the injuries were fresh and the
patient was referred to Karimganj Civil Hospital. From the evidence of the Doctor i.e. the
PW.4, it is seen that he issued the injury report of the victim who was treated as an indoor
patient in surgical ward on 16.06.2019 to 06.07.2019 vide hospital record. However, from his
evidence, it is seen that he did not examine the victim but only issued the report consulting
with the medical documents of the victim. Further, it also reveals that at the time of giving
the injury report, the ENT and Ophthalmology report of the victim was pending. So from the
medical evidence of the Doctor, it is an admitted position that the victim sustained 40--45 %
chemical burn injury which were caused by corrosive agent or it can be termed as acid.
23. Thus, the injury sustained by the victim is not at all disputed and it is also admitted fact
that the victim sustained the injury in the early morning at about 2:00/2:30 A.M. of
17.06.2019 i.e. in the midnight of 16.06.2019, which reflects from the medical report of PW.4.
24. So it is to be seen as to who caused the injuries to the victim for which she sustained
40--45 % chemical burn injury. It is the case of the prosecution that the present
accused/appellant attacked the victim by throwing acid on her in the in the early morning of
17.06.2019 or in the midnight of 16.06.2019, as per the PW.1/victim, on the night of
occurrence at about 2:00 a.m., the accused/appellant who was known to her came to her
place and knocked the door and on her enquiry, he stated that he had come to purchase a
hen. On hearing the same, when she opened the door, he suddenly threw acid on her by
means of a mug, for which she sustained acid burn on her face, hand, belly, back and other
parts of the body. From the evidence of the PW.1, it also reveals that at the time of adducing
her evidence, she also showed the acid burn injuries on her face, belly, hands, etc. After
throwing acid on her, the accused/appellant immediately ran away from the place of
occurrence and thereafter, she was immediately taken to Patherkandi Hospital by her sister-
in-law who stays at some distance from her paternal house. She also stated that both her
parents were quite old and almost in the bed ridden condition at the relevant time of incident.
Page No.# 10/18
Though she was immediately brought to the Patherkandi Hospital, she was referred to
Karimganj Civil Hospital and then, she was again referred to Silchar Medical College &
Hospital for her treatment. She was under treatment in the Silchar Medical College & Hospital
for almost one month and after her recovery, she was discharged from the Hospital and she
lodged the FIR after her partial recovery. She also deposed that the bottle and the mug was
seized by the police from her house.
25. From the evidence of the PW.1, it also reveals that the accused used to taunt her prior
to the date of incident and one occasion, she also scolded him, then he threatened her that
he will assault her by throwing acid on her. From her cross evidence, it is seen that the mug
which was used by the accused/appellant belong to her by which she used to feed the hen.
She also stated that hearing her hue and cry, her parents, her paternal aunt, cousin brother
and her sister-in-law also immediately came there and her sister-in-law Jahanara Begum took
her to the hospital after the incident as there was no other male member present in her
house at the time of incident. However, she stated in her cross evidence that she did not see
the face of the accused/appellant, as immediately after opening the door he threw acid on
her but she could identify him as to who has thrown acid on her from his voice and two days
prior to the incident, he threatened her to assault her by throwing acid on her face.
26. PW.2, the father of the victim also narrated the same story and it is deposed by him
that on the night of the incident, the accused/ appellant came to his house and called from
outside that he want to purchase a hen and hearing the same, he asked his daughter to
attend the call and as soon as his daughter opened the door, she shouted and fell down and
immediately he came and saw that his daughter is lying on the floor in a restless condition,
shouting and crying. He further deposed that hearing hue and cry of his daughter, his sister-
in-law and his younger brother also came there and on inquiry, his daughter stated that she
saw the accused throwing some liquid on her face, pouring the same from a bottle to a mug.
He also deposed that immediately after the incident, his daughter was brought to Patherkandi
Hospital by his son and therefrom she was taken to Silchar Medical College & Hospital,
wherein she had undergone treatment for several days. He further disclosed that his daughter
still has the injury marks on her body ever after her recovery. He further stated that on the
Page No.# 11/18
same day, his statement as well as statement of other relatives were recorded and the police
came to the place of occurrence and also seized the mug and the bottle.
27. PW.3, the aunt of the victim also deposed that on the night of the incident, she heard
the screaming of the victim and immediately, came to the place of occurrence and saw her
lying on the floor in a restless condition crying in utter pain. She told her that her body and
face were burning and she also stated that she was attacked with acid being thrown by the
accused/appellant. She also narrated the incident of scolding of the accused by the victim and
the threatening to the victim to attack her with acid. After the incident, one Jahanara Begum,
the sister-in-law of the victim also came and she took the victim to the hospital. As per the
evidence of PW.3 also the victim was initially brought to the Patherkandi Hospital and then
she was referred to Silchar Medical College & Hospital. From her cross-evidence, it is seen
that she did not accompany the victim to Patherkandi Hospital but she know that the victim
had undergone treatment in Karimganj Civil Hospital, as she was referred from Patherkandi
Hospital. From her cross-evidence, it further reveals that there was no male member at the
relevant time, as all the male members were staying outside, in their work place.
28. PW.5 is the investigating officer of this case who investigated the case and as per him,
the FIR was received on 08.07.2019 at Patherkandi Police Station, which was accordingly
registered as Patherkandi P.S. Case No. 331/2019 under sections 326A/307 IPC and he was
endorsed with the case for investigation. Accordingly, he visited the place of occurrence,
prepared the sketch map and also recorded the statements of the witnesses and seized one
plastic bottle and red colour plastic mug from the place of occurrence. During investigation,
he also collected the medical report of the injured, as the injured has already gone for
medical treatment prior to lodging of the FIR. The accused was arrested and forwarded to the
Court and on completion of the investigation, he submitted the charge sheet against the
accused under sections 326(A)/307 of the IPC. At the time of recording his statement, the
seized mug and bottle were produced, which was accordingly, exhibited as M. Ext.1 and M.
Ext.2. In his cross evidence he stated that he recorded the statement of all the witnesses on
08.07.2019, after receiving the FIR.
Page No.# 12/18
29. The defence also adduced two witnesses in support of his case. The DW.1 is the
brother of the informant and he stated that someone had thrown acid on her face and his
sister told him that she had not seen as to who had thrown acid on her. From his cross
evidence it is seen that he used to reside at a distance of 2½ K.M. from his own village and
further denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely only to save the accused, as he has
enmity with his sister.
30. DW.2, the sister-in-law of the informant/victim and the wife of the DW.1 deposed that
in the midnight of the occurrence, she heard that someone had thrown acid on her sister-in-
law and immediately after hearing her cry, she came to her house and took her to the
Hospital. Thereafter, her husband/DW.1 took the initiative for treatment of the
informant/victim. She also deposed that the victim did not see as to who had thrown acid on
her. From her cross evidence it is seen that she was cited as a prosecution witness but she
avoided the process of the Court and for which the warrant of arrest were also issued against
her and thereafter she came to depose as a defence witness in favour of the accused.
31. So far from the discussion of the evidence of both the PWs and DWs above, it is seen
that there is no dispute that the victim sustained 40--45% chemical burn injury on her body,
face, trunk, etc., which were grievous in nature, caused by corrosive agent and at the time of
her examination, the injuries were fresh and subsequently she was referred for treatment to
Karimganj Civil Hospital. However, from the evidence of the Doctor, it is seen that he has not
provided treatment to the injured though subsequently, he issued the report on 07.09.2019.
The victim also showed her injury marks/scar marks while adducing her evidence. From the
evidence on record, it is seen that the PW.1 who is the victim of this case had identified the
accused who threw acid on her immediately on opening the door in the night of 16.06.2019
or in the early morning of 17.09.2019, at about 2:00/2:30 A.M. It is seen from her evidence
as well as from the evidence of other PWs, that the victim could not see the face of the
accused/appellant while he threw acid on her from a mug but from her cross-evidence, it
could not be rebutted that she could not identify the person who threw acid on her. From her
testimony, it is also revealed that before opening the door, she had talked with the accused/
appellant and she opened the door when he asked that he came to purchase a hen from her.
Page No.# 13/18
Being a person from the same locality, the victim could identify the person by his voice and
there is no evidence to disbelieve this part of evidence that the victim could not recognize the
accused in spite of the fact that she could not see who threw acid on her face, as it was a
sudden attack on her by the accused/appellant.
32. More so, from the evidence of the PW.2, the father of the victim it also reveals that
initially he also heard the voice of the accused/appellant and on being asked, he stated that
he came to purchase a hen and then he asked his daughter to open the door, who also had a
talk with the accused before opening the door. Thus the evidence of the PW.2 also to the
extent that he heard the voice of the accused/appellant and thereafter only he asked his
daughter to open the door also could not be rebutted by the defence. Thus, this part of
evidence that the accused came in the midnight of the occurrence and threw acid on the face
and body of the victim for which she sustained grievous injuries on her person could not be
rebutted.
33. Further, the issue raised by the learned counsel for the appellant as to who took the
victim to the hospital, it is seen that as per PW.1, she was taken to the hospital by her sister-
in-law Jahanara Begum (DW.2), as there was no male member present and her evidence is
also supported by the DW.2, who is the sister-in-law of the PW.1, who took the victim to the
hospital. Further, it is a fact that the PW.2, the father of the victim deposed that his son took
her to the hospital on the night of incident but from the evidence, it is seen that his son/DW.1
was also present during her treatment at Silchar Medical College Hospital. At the same time,
the PW.3 who is the aunt of the victim also supported the version of the PW.1 as well as the
DW.1 that after the incident, it is the DW.1/sister-in-law of the victim who took her
immediately to Patherkandi Hospital, wherefrom she was referred to Karimganj Civil Hospital.
In the same time, her evidence also supports the evidence of the PW.1 that her sister-in-law
took her to the Hospital due to absence of any male member in the house at the relevant
time of incident. Thus, only the statement made by the PW.2 that his son took his daughter
to the medical, the corroborating evidence of PW.1 as well as PW.3 and DW.1 cannot be
disbelieved.
Page No.# 14/18
34. Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant raised the issue that
the learned Sessions Judge did not appreciate the evidence of both the DW.1 and DW.2, who
happened to be the brother and sister-in-law of the victim. But from the evidence of both the
DW.1 and DW.2, it reveals that on the night of incident, the victim sustained injuries and it is
the DW.2, who took her to the hospital for treatment. Thus, both the DW.1 and DW.2 also
supports the prosecution version that the occurrence took place in the night of 16.06.2019 or
in the early morning of 17.09.2019, at about 2:00/2:30 A.M.. when the DW.2 also rushed to
the house of the victim and took her to the hospital. The learned Senior Counsel also raised
the issue that one mug and one bottle were used at the time of incident and he submitted
that a mug cannot be placed inside a bottle, which otherwise creates a reasonable doubt in
the veracity of the prosecution evidence. But after scrutinizing the testimony of all the
prosecution witnesses, it reveals that the accused used the mug which was outside the house
of the victim, while throwing the acid on her and he poured the acid from the bottle in the
mug and then threw the same on the face and other parts of the body of the victim. It is not
a case that he put the mug inside the bottle and threw acid on the victim.
35. Coming to the issue raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant in regards to
the delay in lodging the FIR, it is seen that admittedly there is 20 days delay in lodging the
FIR but from the FIR itself, it is seen that the delay is well explained by the informant/victim
and the FIR was lodged only after her partial recovery, as she was not in a condition to lodge
an FIR immediately after the incident who had sustained 40--45% chemical burn injuries all
over her body, due to attack by coercive substance. Thus, it is seen that the delay is
explained and as such, the delay of 20 days in lodging the FIR cannot be fatal for the
prosecution case, wherein the delay is well explained by the prosecution. Rather it is quite
reasonable that a person who faced an acid attack, cannot lodge a case instantly after such
attack and it is quite believable that after her partial recovery, she lodged the FIR.
36. Another dispute raised by the learned defence Counsel in regards to the recording of
statement as well as the preparation of the seizure list. As per PW.2, the articles were seized
and the statement of the witnesses were recorded immediately after the occurrence. But
from the entire evidence on record and other circumstances of the case, it is very much
Page No.# 15/18
evident that the police initiated the investigation only after receipt of the FIR. Further it is not
a case of any circumstantial evidence but the case is based on the evidence of the victim who
sustained chemical burn injury.
37. Generally, the evidence of the victim has greater evidentiary value and the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in various judgments has held that the evidences of injured witnesses have
greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be
discarded lightly. In that context, a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court, which was reported in
(2003) 10 SCC 414 (State of M.P. Vs. Mansingh & Ors.), can be relied on, wherein in
paragraph Nos. 9 & 12 of the judgment, it has been held as under:
"9. The evidence of injured witnesses have greater evidentiary value and unless
compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly. Merely
because there was no mention of a knife in the first information report. That does not
wash away the effect of evidence tendered by the injured witnesses PWs 4 and 7.
Minor discrepancies do not corrode credibility of otherwise acceptable evidence. The
circumstances highlighted by the High Court to attach vulnerability to evidence of the
injured witnesses are clearly inconsequential. Though, it is fairly conceded by learned
counsel for the accused that though mere non-mention of the assailant's names in the
requisition memo of injury is not sufficient to discard the prosecution version in
entirety, according to him it is a doubtful circumstance and forms a vital link to
determine whether prosecution version is credible. It is a settled position in law that
omission to mention the name of the assailants in the requisition memo perforce does
not render prosecution version brittle.
12. Even if it is accepted that there were deficiencies in investigation as pointed out by
the High Court, that cannot be a ground to discard the prosecution version which is
authentic, credible and cogent. Non-examination of Hira Lal is also not a factor to cast
doubt on the prosecution version. He was not an eye-witness, and according to the
version of PW 8 he arrived after PW 8. When PW 8 has been examined, the non-
examination of Hira Lal is of no consequence."
38. In another judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1243 of 2007,
Criminal Appeal No. 1399 of 2008 & Criminal Appeals No. 1363 of 2010, which was reported
in (2010) 10 SCC 259 (Abdul Sayeed & Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh), also expressed the
same view in paragraph Nos. 28, 29 & 30 of the judgment, which reads as under:
Page No.# 16/18
"28. The question of the weight to be attached to the evidence of a witness that was
himself injured in the course of the occurrence has been extensively discussed by this
Court. Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the
testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a
witness that comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime
and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone.
"Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness". (Vide Ramlagan
Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar,5 AIR 1972 SC 2593; Malkhan Singh & Anr. v. State of
Uttar Pradesh,6 AIR 1975 SC 12; Machhi Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab,7 AIR 1983
SC 957; Appabhai & Anr. v. State of Gujarat, 8 AIR 1988 SC 696; Bonkya alias Bharat
Shivaji Mane & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra,9 (1995) 6 SCC 447; Bhag Singh & Ors.
(supra); Mohar & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh,10 (2002) 7 SCC 606; Dinesh Kumar v.
State of Rajasthan,11 (2008) 8 SCC 270; Vishnu & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan,12
(2009) 10 SCC 477; Annareddy Sambasiva Reddy & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh,13
AIR 2009 SC 2261; Balraje alias Trimbak v. State of Maharashtra,14 (2010) 6 SCC
673).
29. While deciding this issue, a similar view was taken in, Jarnail Singh v. State of
Punjab,15 (2009) 9 SCC 719, where this Court reiterated the special evidentiary status
accorded to the testimony of an injured accused and relying on its earlier judgments
held as under:-
"28. Darshan Singh (PW 4) was an injured witness. He had been
examined by the doctor. His testimony could not be brushed aside lightly.
He had given full details of the incident as he was present at the time
when the assailants reached the tubewell. In Shivalingappa Kallayanappa
v. State of Karnataka, 1994 Supp (3) SCC 235, this Court has held that
the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there
are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major
contradictions and discrepancies, for the reason that his presence on the
scene stands established in case it is proved that he suffered the injury
during the said incident.
29. In State of U.P. v. Kishan Chand, (2004) 7 SCC 629, a similar view
has been reiterated observing that the testimony of a stamped witness
has its own relevance and efficacy. The fact that the witness sustained
injuries at the time and place of occurrence, lends support to his
testimony that he was present during the occurrence. In case the injured
witness is subjected to lengthy cross- examination and nothing can be
elicited to discard his testimony, it should be relied upon (vide Krishan v.
State of Haryana, (2006) 12 SCC 459). Thus, we are of the considered
Page No.# 17/18
opinion that evidence of Darshan Singh (PW 4) has rightly been relied
upon by the courts below."
30. The law on the point can be summarised to the effect that the testimony of the
injured witness is accorded a special status in law. This is as a consequence of the fact
that the injury to the witness is an in-built guarantee of his presence at the scene of
the crime and because the witness will not want to let his actual assailant go
unpunished merely to falsely implicate a third party for the commission of the offence.
Thus, the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are
strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and
discrepancies therein."
39. Accordingly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Sayeed (supra), had
expressed the view that the testimony of the injured witness is accorded a special status in
law and because these witnesses will not want to let his actual assailant go unpunished
merely to falsely implicate a third party for the commission of the offence."
40. In the instant case also, it is seen that the victim as well as her father (PW.2) could
recognize the accused by his voice who came in the midnight of the occurrence for
purchasing a hen. At the same time, the PW.1/victim also narrated the incidents prior to the
present incident, wherein the accused/appellant also threatened her to attack her with acid
when the victim scolded her, as the accused/appellant used to taunt her every day. Thus, the
motive behind the attack also brought by the prosecution and this part of evidence also could
not be rebutted by the defence, neither by cross-examining the PWs nor by adducing any
defence witnesses in that regard. However, it is seen that at the time of recording the
statement under Section 313 of the CrPC, the accused/appellant took the plea that due to
business rivalry, this false case is lodged against him. But as stated above, the same could
not be substantiated by adducing any relevant evidence to that regard and the DW.1 and
DW.2 also did not support the version of the defence that due to business rivalry, the victim
lodged a false case against the accused/appellant.
41. Considering all these aspects of the case and in view of detail discussion made above,
this Court is of the view that while convicting the accused appellant under Section 326A of
the IPC, the learned Trial Court committed no error and mistake and there is no reason for
Page No.# 18/18
any interference. More so, the learned Sessions Judge also made a discussion, while
sentencing the accused/appellant for ten (10) years i.e. the minimum term of prescribed
sentence under Section 326A of the IPC and hence, there is no need to any interference of
the sentence, passed by the learned Sessions Judge.
42. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.
43. Return back the Trial Court Record with a copy of this judgment immediately.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
