Jharkhand High Court
Shankar Manjhi @ Shankar Bhuiya @ ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 2 September, 2024
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated
31.01.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Dhanbad, in
S.T. Case No.463 of 2013).
.........
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 398 of 2017
Shankar Manjhi @ Shankar Bhuiya @ Bhuiyan, S/o Rambriksha Bhuiya, R/o
Village Balwa, P.O. & P.S. Nardiganj, District Nawadah (Bihar)
..... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... Respondent
.........
For the Appellant : Mr. Ranjan Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. Public Prosecutor
-----------
PRESENT
Sri Ananda Sen, J.
Sri Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.
JUDGMENT
02.09.2024
Per Ananda Sen, J.:
Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Ranjan Kumar and
learned counsel for the State, Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. Public Prosecutor.
2. This criminal appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence of
the sole appellant vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence both
dated 31.01.2017, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX,
Dhanbad, in S.T. Case No.463 of 2013, whereby the sole appellant has been
convicted under Sections 341/324/326/326A and 307 of the Indian Penal
Code and he has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life with a fine of
Rs.20,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and in
default of payment of fine, he shall suffer further term of S.I. for two years.
He was further sentence to undergo R.I for 10 years and fine of Rs.50,000/-
under Section 326A of the Indian Penal Code, in default of payment of fine,
he shall suffer further term of S.I. for one year. He was further convicted
under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence to undergo S.I. for
one month.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been
convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and also under
Section 326A of the Indian Penal Code. It is contended that when the
appellant has been convicted under Section 326A of the Indian Penal Code,
there is no application of Section 307 of IPC thus, his conviction under
Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is absolutely bad. He further submits
that all the witnesses are related witness of the injured and since there was
admittedly some discord, there is high probability that this appellant has
been falsely implicated in this case. None of the independent witnesses,
who caught the appellant was examined, which suggest that the appellant
has been false implication.
4. Learned counsel for the State submits that there is consistent evidence
that the appellant poured acid on the body of the victim and while fleeing
from the place of occurrence, he threw the acid on the informant and
another. The doctor also found acid burn injury not only upon the victim,
but also on the informant. It has also been established that the relationship
between the appellant and the victim was not cordial and she was driven out
from the house. The witnesses are natural witness as the entire incident
occurred in the house of the informant. Acid attack is an independent
offence and conviction under Section 326A of the Indian Penal Code, will
not per se absolve the appellant from the charge under Section 307 of the
Indian Penal Code, as there are sufficient material to convict the appellant
under both the sections as the appellant had intention to commit murder of
the deceased.
5. F.I.R. is at the instance of P.W.-1, Kunti Kamin, who stated that his
youngest daughter- Gauri Devi, who was married with Shankar Manjhi in
the year, 2007. She further stated that father of the appellant retired from
his service about 3 to 4 years ago and after his retirement, he left the quarter
of B.C.C.L. and went to his permanent home situated at Village- Balwapar,
Nardiganj Bazar, Nawada, Bihar. After marriage, her daughter used to visit
her matrimonial home and used to come back to her paternal house. On
Chhath Puja festival, the son-in-law, Shankar Manjhi asked her daughter
over phone, to come to his house after Chhath Puja otherwise, he would
divorce her. Upon this threat, the informant rushed to the address of her
son-in-law along with her younger daughter. However, after ten days her
daughter returned to her paternal house and disclosed that anyhow she
rescued herself from the hands of her husband and she has been ousted
from his house after being assaulted and was asked to bring Rs.1 lakh cash
from her mother and if the demand was not fulfilled, she would be
divorced.
6. On 22.03.2013 at 08.00 A.M. her all three sons, namely, Suresh, Umesh
and Chote Lal had gone to Dhanbad at their work and at her home Puja
Kumari, D/o Geeta Devi, Neha, D/o Chote Lal and her grand-daughter
Anjali and S/o Gauri Devi, namely Karan were present. At about 09.00
A.M. the accused, Shankar Manjhi came to her home and knocked the door
from outside, then the grand-daughter of informant namely, Puja Kumari
opened the door when the accused came in the courtyard and asked from
Puja Kumari about his wife, then Puja said that she was taking lunch in her
room. The appellant was having one black bag in his hand. He asked Puja
to bring a glass of water for him. Puja left the room to bring water when the
accused locked the door from inside with Gauri Devi. Gauri Devi started
crying "bachao-bachao". Listing the alarm the informant and Puja Kumari
went at the window of the room, which was opened and saw that Shankar
Manjhi was putting something kept in a container on the body of Gauri
Devi after thrashing her on bed. Thereafter, Puja went out of the house and
started screaming in the vicinity and hearing her alarm people assembled. In
the meanwhile, Shankar opened the door and started fleeing and thereupon,
the informant and one Pandit Ji tried to catch him upon which, the appellant
threw the residue of the material kept in the container, which he was
carrying towards the informant and Pandit Ji, due to which, the face, chest
and left side of body of the informant got burnt. The people chased the
appellant, caught hold of him and handed him over to the police.
6. On the aforesaid fardbeyan, Putki P.S. Case No.39 of 2013 was
registered under Sections 341/324/326/307 of the Indian Penal Code. The
police after investigation filed chargesheet under Sections 341/324/326/307
of the Indian Penal Code.
7. As the appellant pleaded not guilty, charges were framed and he was
put on trial.
8. In this case altogether fourteen witnesses were examined by the
prosecution, who are as follows:-
P.W.-1 Kunti Kamin is the informant of this case.
P.W.-2 Umesh Bhuiyan
P.W.-3 Kamli Devi
P.W.-4 Nandu Bhuiya @ Pradip Bhuiyan
P.W.-5 Geeta Devi
P.W.-6 Gauri Devi is the victim of this case
P.W.-7 Puja Kumari
P.W.-8 Sanjeet Kumar Bhuiyan
P.W.-9 Rita Devi
P.W.-10 Dr. Anil Kumar
P.W.-11 Dr. Uday Shankar Singh
P.W.-12 Chunmun Singh is Investigating Officer in this case.
P.W.-13 Kishori Pandey
P.W.-14 Dr. Mrigendra Kumar Rai is the Doctor of this case
9. The following documents and material objects were also exhibited by
the prosecution:-
Exhibit-1 Signature of Umesh Bhuiyan on fardbeyan.
Exhibits-2, 2/1 and 3 are injury report
Exhibit-4 Fardbeyan
Exhibit-4/1 registration of police case
Exhibit-5 formal FIR
Exhibit-6 seizure list
Exhibit-7 memo of arrest
Exhibit-8 Injury report
Exhibit-9 report of State Forensic Science Laboratory
P.W.-1 (Kunti Kamin) is the informant of this case. She stated that her
daughter- Gauri was married with Shankar Manjhi and they had a male
child from the said wedlock. Shankar was residing with his family near the
house of informant and his father was guard and after his retirement, they
shifted along with Gauri Devi to their native place at Nawada (Bihar). She
further stated that on Chhath Puja, Gauri had come to her parent's house for
four days, thereafter, on the request of the appellant, she returned to her
matrimonial home, where the appellant quarreled with her and demanded
Rs.1 lac. Thereafter, Gauri Devi was compelled to leave her matrimonial
home thus, she returned to her mother's house. She further stated that
Shankar had gone to Punjab to earn his livelihood. She further stated that
appellant about one year ago at 08.00 A.M. in the morning, came to her
house with one black colour bag and entered the room where Gauri Devi
and Puja were taking their breakfast. He asked Puja to bring water from
him. When Puja went outside the room, Shankar closed the door from
inside and thrashed his wife Gauri Devi on the bed and put acid upon her.
She further stated that when Gauri shouted, the informant went near the
window of the room and saw that the accused had put acid over Gauri Devi.
She picked up one brick and hit the door, when the door opened and the
appellant came out having the rest part of acid in the container and he threw
the acid over Anjali (informant's grand-daughter) as well as on the
informant and as a result of which her hand, face and chest was burnt. She
further stated that due to the acid attack the face, ears, eyes and frontal side
of the body of Gauri Devi was completely burnt due to which she is unable
to see. When the appellant tried to flee, Suresh Bhuiyan caught him. In her
cross-examination, she stated that Ramesh Ravidas and Suresh Bhuiyan are
resident of same area and their house are situated near the house of the
informant. She further stated that at the time of occurrence, she raised
alarm, but she could not see whether acid was fallen on the body of the
appellant or not.
P.W.-2 (Umesh Bhuiyan) is the hearsay witness, who stated that he was
informed by his niece that Gauri Devi was burnt by her husband with acid.
He went to the hospital and saw the victim whose head, face and chest was
burnt. He stated that since Rs.1 lakh was not given, the appellant has
committed the offence.
P.W.-3 (Kamli Devi) is also hearsay witness, who stated that on raising
alarm she went to the place of occurrence where she saw the victim's head,
face, neck and chest was burnt by acid, which was poured by the appellant
as stated by Puja Kumari. She further stated that appellant demanded Rs.1
lakh due to which, some argument had taken place between him and his
wife and the appellant committed the offence.
P.W.-4 (Nandu Bhuiyan @ Pradip Bhuiyan) is also a hearsay witness
of the occurrence, who stated that his brother, Umesh Bhuiyan told him that
Shankar had put acid over the body of victim- Gauri Devi and thereafter, he
went to the house of his aunt and saw the burnt face and body of Gauri
Devi. He further stated that Shankar was demanding Rs.1 lakh.
P.W.-5 (Geeta Devi) has deposed that the occurrence took place one
and half years ago at about 09.00 A.M. while she was present at the house
of her mother. She is sister of Gauri Devi and mother of Puja Kumari, one
of the eye witness of the occurrence. Shankar demanded water from Puja
Kumari and when she left the room Shankar locked the door from inside
and the window was open. When Gauri Devi screamed, this witness saw the
occurrence from window that the accused thrashed Gauri Devi on the bed
and put acid on her head and face and result of that her entire face and chest
was completely burnt and thereafter, the accused tried to escape, who was
followed by her mother and her daughter, Anjali. Shankar also thrown acid
on the persons of her mother and daughter causing burn injury and the
accused was caught. In her cross-examination, she stated that her statement
was recorded by the police and she has denied the suggestion that her sister,
Gauri Devi tried to kill herself by putting acid and the accused was
implicated in a false case.
P.W.-6 (Gauri Devi) is the victim of this case. She deposed that the
occurrence took place on 22.03.2013 at about 09.00 A.M. in the morning
and at that time, she and Puja Kumari (daughter of her elder sister) were
taking breakfast. Her husband, Shankar came there and told Puja to bring
water for him. Puja went outside for bringing water and in the meanwhile,
Shankar closed the door from inside and thrashed her on the bed and put
acid on her face and head, as a result of which her head, eyes, face and
chest was badly burnt. Due to this incident, she is unable to see anything
from her left eye and having poor vision from her right eye. She further
stated that her husband put acid in her mouth too, as a result of which, she
is unable to take food properly. She further stated that her husband was
demanding Rs.1 lakh as dowry. This witness has fully supported and
corroborated the version of fardbeyan. In her cross-examination, she
deposed that it was Suresh Bhuiyan, who caught Shankar Bhuiyan. She
denied the suggestion that she does not want to stay with Shankar Bhuiyan.
She also denied the suggestion that she was having relationship with Mittal
Chouhan, which was objected by her husband.
P.W.-7 (Puja Kumari), she deposed that the occurrence took place on
22.03.2012 at about 09.00 A.M. in the morning and at that time, she and her
aunty, Gauri Devi were taking breakfast, when her uncle, Shankar came and
send her to bring water for him. When she came out, he close the door from
inside and thrashed Gauri Devi on the bed and put acid on her face, head
and body. She further stated that Shankar was putting acid in the mouth of
Gauri Devi, as a result of which, face, ears, back, neck and chest of the
victim was completely burnt. She further stated that both the eyes of the
victim are damaged. In her cross-examination, she stated that uncle,
Shankar brought acid in container. In her cross-examination, she stated that
she saw the incident through the window as the room was locked from
inside.
P.W.-8 (Sanjeet Kumar Bhuiyan) is the hearsay witness. He heard
about the incident from his family members that Shankar poured acid upon
his wife due to which her face, chest and back got burnt.
P.W.-9 (Rita Devi) is hearsay witness. She deposed that the incident
took place about three months ago and in her presence the police seized the
materials for which papers were prepared and she and her brother put their
thumb impression. She got the information from his younger brother.
P.W.-10 (Dr. Anil Kumar) is the Medical Officer, who examined Kunti
Kamin (informant) and one Shankar Bhuiyan.
On examination of Kunti Kamin, he found burn injury extending front
of face left arm and front of chest. This burn was extended 20%. Acidic
smell coming from the wound. This injury report was marked as Exhibit-2.
On examination of Shankar Bhuiyan (appellant), he found the following
injuries:-
(i)Lacerated wound lateral to right eye 2"x1/2"x skin deep.
(ii)Scald right forearm 2"x 1".
(iii) Scald left hand 1"x 1".
Acidic smell coming out from the wound.
This injury report was marked as Exhibit-2/1.
In cross-examination, he stated that the report is not full and final as the
opinion of the injuries has been reserved. He further stated that it is difficult
to distinguish between burn injury and acidic, except the smell. Smell can
be detected by chemist which he is not.
P.W.-11 (Dr. Uday Shankar Singh), who is Senior Resident of eye
Department, P.M.C.H., Dhanbad, examined the informant on the request of
Surgery Department, P.M.C.H., Dhanbad and found some simple injuries
over her eye and the injury report was marked as Exhibit-3.
P.W.-12 (Chunmun Singh) is the Investigating Officer of this case. He
deposed that on 22.03.2013, he was posted as Officer-in-Charge at Putki
Police Station. He further stated that on that day, he registered the formal
F.I.R. on the basis of fardbeyan of Kunti Kamin and has proved the said
fardbeyan in his writing and signature, which was marked as Exhibit-4. He
has also proved the endorsement on the F.I.R., which was marked as
Exhibit- 4/1. He also proved the formal F.I.R., which was marked as
Exhibit- 5. When he reached the place of occurrence, he found burnt cloth,
utensils on which there was stain of acid or some chemical and he found a
plastic container. He seized all articles in presence of two witnesses,
namely, Rita Devi and Sanjeev Kumar. The seizure list was prepared,
which was marked as Exhibit-6. He further stated that he arrested the
accused, Shankar Manjhi and prepared the memo arrest, which was marked
as Exhibit-7.
P.W.-13 (Kishori Pandey), who has not supported the prosecution case
and has been declared hostile.
P.W.-14 (Dr. Mirgendra Kumar Rai), who examined the victim- Gauri
Devi and found dark and leathery appearing superficial to deep burn
wounds involving: -
1.Whole face and neck.
2.Chest
3.Front of right upper arm
4.Back of right of upper arm.
He found burn approximately- 20%, nature of burn- grievous (because
burn wound lead to permanent disfigurement of face). The injury report is
under his signature, which was marked as Exhibit-8.
He further stated that the injuries which were found and noted by him
in the said injury report, may cause death or sufficient to cause death of
such patient who got acid burn injuries on her neck and face in the ordinary
course of nature. In his cross-examination, he stated that the victim was
referred to RIMS and she was admitted in emergency ward. He admitted
that acid injury and burn injury are different. In case of acid/ chemical
injuries may cause different type of burn injuries in different manners. He
stated that chemical analysis is done by the Chemical expert and doctors are
only to treat. He stated that even 9 to 10% of burn is sufficient to cause
death and it is not necessary that it will be caused by burn injury up to 70 to
80%.
10. After conclusion of the evidence, the statement of the appellant was
recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Ultimately the Trial Court finding
the appellant guilty has convicted him under Sections 341/324/326/326A
and 307 of the Indian Penal Code.
11. From the evidence led by the parties, we find that this is a case where it
is alleged that victim, P.W.-6 has been burnt by administering acid. The
occurrence had taken place in the house of the informant, who is none, but
the mother of the victim and the victim was also residing there. P.W.-1,
P.W.-5 and P.W.-7 are the eye witness. All these three witnesses were
present in the house. They categorically stated that this appellant entered
the house and asked P.W.-7 for water. When P.W.-7 left the room, where
she was with the victim, this appellant locked the room, thrashed the victim
on the bed and poured acid upon her. She screamed immediately, when all
these witnesses saw that this appellant was pouring acid upon the victim.
All these witnesses have stated that they had seen the occurrence from
window, which was open as the door was locked. P.W.-6 is the victim in
this case, she also narrated in the same line. She stated that this appellant
came and asked P.W.-7 to bring glass of water. When she left the room, this
appellant locked the room from inside, thrashed her on the bed and poured
acid. She also stated that this appellant tried to put acid in her mouth as a
result of which she now is unable to consume food properly. The fact that
appellant had put acid in the mouth is also substantiated by P.W.-7, who is
also an eye witness and stated that this appellant was putting acid in the
mouth of the victim. P.W.-1 (informant) stated that when the appellant fled,
he also threw the acid upon her and upon one Suresh Bhuiyan who caught
the appellant. From the aforesaid evidence, we find that the appellant had
thrown acid on the victim after confining her in the room and while trying
to flee, he sprinkled the residue upon the informant and one Suresh
Bhuiyan.
12. In corroboration, we look into the medical evidence. Doctor, P.W.-10
has examined the informant. The Doctor found burnt injury on the
informant, on her face, left arm and front chest. The informant while
deposing stated that she had sustained injury on the said part of the body.
The Doctor found her burn injury to be 20% and acidic smell was coming
from the wound. P.W.-14 is the Doctor, who treated the victim. He also
stated that he found burn injuries on the whole face, neck, chest and frontal
and back side of forearm. The injuries were of deep burn and the nature of
burn was grievous as it led to permanent disfigurement of face. Doctor also
stated that the injuries may cause death or is sufficient to cause death of
such patient, who got burn injury on her neck, face and body in ordinary
course of nature. The FSL report has also been exhibited in this case.
Several seized materials from the house i.e. steel plate, steel glass,
aluminum pot and wearing apparels of the victim and others were sent for
examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory. In the report, sulfuric acid
was detected in the wearing apparels of the victim and on several materials
and container, which were found. Be it noted that it is the case of the
prosecution that this appellant had brought the acid in the said container.
13. The fact that the appellant had administered acid has been substantiated
by evidence of P.W.-10. There was acidic injury found on the left hand and
right forearm of the appellant. It is the case that when the appellant after
administering acid was fleeing, when he was chased and was caught. While
he was chased, he threw the acid. Thus, it is clear that at the time of
administering acid and throwing the acid, he had also sustained injury in his
hand.
14. Thus, from the ocular evidence and the medical evidence, we find that
the prosecution has established their case beyond all reasonable doubts that
it is the appellant, who had committed the offence and threw acid upon the
victim and was administering the same, with intention to commit murder
and he also had thrown acid upon the informant and another while fleeing
from the place of occurrence. The ocular evidence is corroborated by the
medical evidence and the Forensic Science Report.
15. The occurrence had taken place in the house of the informant, thus,
there is no question that some outsider would be present in the house, in the
morning when the occurrence had taken place. The natural witnesses are the
informant (P.W.-1) (mother of the victim), P.W.-5 (sister of the victim) and
P.W.-7 (niece of the victim). There is nothing in the statement to disbelieve
them nor there is any material to discard their testimony. There is no
exaggeration in the statement nor there any contradictions. As stated earlier
their evidence is corroborated by the medical evidence and the F.S.L.
report.
16. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that when the appellant has
already been convicted under Section 326A of the Indian Penal Code, then
there is no application of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code in this case
and the appellant cannot be punished under both the sections.
17. We disagree to the aforesaid argument. Section 326A of the Indian
Penal Code provides for punishment in case of voluntary causing grievous
hurt by use of acid, whereas Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code provides
for punishment for attempting murder.
18. Section 307 of IPC and Section 326A of IPC reads as follows:-
"307. Attempt to murder.--Whoever does any act with such
intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that,
if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be
liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such
act, the offender shall be liable either to 1[imprisonment for
life], or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.
Attempts by life-convicts.--4[When any person offending
under this section is under sentence of [imprisonment for
life], he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.]
326A. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid,
etc.--Whoever causes permanent or partial damage or
deformity to, or burns or maims or disfigures or disables,
any part or parts of the body of a person or causes grievous
hurt by throwing acid on or by administering acid to that
person, or by using any other means with the intention of
causing or with the knowledge that he is likely to cause
such injury or hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which shall not be less than ten
years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and
with fine:
Provided that such fine shall be just and reasonable
to meet the medical expenses of the treatment of the victim:
Provided further that any fine imposed under this
section shall be paid to the victim."
19. From analysis of the aforesaid sections, we find that if a person is
hurt grievously when attacked by acid, Section 326A of the Indian
Penal Code would be attracted. As per the aforesaid provision of law,
the person who is attacking with the acid, should have the intention and
knowledge that he would cause injury or hurt by using the acid upon
whom he is throwing the same. This provision is limited to grievous
hurt and serious injury. Whereas Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code
is attracted when the accused had intention and knowledge that his act
which he is committing would cause death and, in that case, he will be
guilty of murder. Both these penal provisions operate on different crime
situations. When a grievous hurt is caused by an acid attack and there is
evidence to the effect that the perpetrator of the crime had no intention
to commit murder of the deceased, then there would be no application
of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and only Section 326A of the
Indian Penal Code is attracted.
20. However, in a situation where there is evidence that the acid
attack was with an intention or knowledge that the injury would cause
death and the attempt was to cause death by acid attack, then along with
Section 326A of the Indian Penal Code, the accused can be punished
under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.
21. In this case, we find that there is consistent evidence, especially
from the victim and also from P.W.-7 that the appellant had intention to
cause death of deceased by pouring acid in the mouth of the victim. The
victim stated that as she was administered acid through mouth, thus it is
not possible for her to eat properly. P.W.-7 had also stated that she had
seen this appellant administering acid through the mouth of victim.
P.W.-14, the Doctor stated that the injury which has been inflicted upon
the victim is sufficient to cause death of the patient in ordinary course
of nature. Thus, it has been proved that this appellant had intention to
commit murder and had taken attempt to commit murder of the victim
by administering acid. The administration of acid has been proved as
held earlier. Thus, he is guilty of both committing offence under
Section 326A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 307 of the Indian
Penal Code. It has also been proved that he sprinkled acid upon the
informant and another while he was fleeing. The injury upon the
informant has also been proved, so the offence under Section 326A of
the Indian Penal Code committed by the appellant upon the informant
has also stands proved. Thus, we are of the opinion that the appellant
can be convicted under both the Sections.
22. In cumulative effect from what has been held above, we find no
merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the instant Criminal Appeal is
dismissed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence is hereby
confirmed.
23. Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
24. The Trial Court Record along with a copy of this judgment be
sent back to the learned Trial Court.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated 02/09/2024
AFR /R.S./ Cp 03.
