With a view to send strong message, High Court puts a 25 years cap on acid-attack accused sentenced to life-imprisonment [Read the Judgement]

June 12, 2019:

The Delhi High Court has modified the sentence of an acid-attack accused and directed that his case for remission shall not be considered before 25 years in jail.

The petitioner here has been charged under Section 452 and Section 302 IPC. He has been sentenced by which the he had been directed to undergo R.I. for three years for offence committed under Section 452 IPC along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and to undergo L.I. for offence under Section 302 IPC along with a fine of Rs.5,00,000.

The petitioner here pleads that the case made against him is false.

Learned Counsel for the appellant-accused contends that initially the assailant was mentioned as unknown and the name of the appellant-accused had been added subsequently by the mother of the deceased-victim, as she wanted to settle personal scores.

He states that in the initial history given in MLC, the assailant was not named. He alleges that few sentences while recording the history of the case in the MLC had been added subsequently. He points out that when the Investigating Officer after meeting the victim had reached the crime spot–which was being inspected by the crime team–the Investigating Officer had informed the crime officials that an unknown person had thrown acid on a girl. He states that PW-3 Prem Lata had deposed that she had been told that the appellant-accused had been called for repair of air conditioner, which fact she stated to the attending doctor, inasmuch as, the MLC recorded that some boy had thrown some liquid used for AC repairs.

According to learned counsel for the appellant-accused, there was a dispute between the families of appellant-accused and the deceased-victim as the appellant-accused had been in a relationship with the elder sister of the deceased-victim and they wanted to marry, but her parents did not agree. Mr.Gupta further states that the claim of PW-2, mother of the deceased, that the appellant-accused had been called by her for repair of AC window does not stand to reason as the families of the deceased and the appellant-accused were not on speaking terms and further the appellant- accused was not a mason by profession, but a dealer in building materials.

Thus, according to him, the name of the appellant-accused was added subsequently, at the instance of the mother of the deceased, with intent to falsely implicate him in the present case.

Learned counsel for the appellant-accused states that the scientific evidence available in the form of footprints on the staircase, by which truth could have been easily detected, was deliberately not lifted by the police in connivance with the parents of the deceased. He emphasises that this piece of evidence could have easily and definitely proven whether the appellant- accused was a culprit or not. He points out that before the trial court, the State claimed they were the footprints of the deceased-victim, but the MLC did not show any burn injury on the feet of the deceased. He states that the State had admitted that the footprints were not of the appellant-accused. He emphasizes that the appellant-accused had been medically examined and there were no burn injuries on his feet either. Thus he reiterates that the assailant was unknown and the appellant-accused was not present at the time of the incident.

On Contrary, Learned additional public prosecutor states that PCR call had been made for alerting the police and triggering the necessary proceedings only. She points out that on the right hand side of the PCR form, the name of the appellant-accused had been mentioned almost contemporaneously.

She states that in the MLC Ex. PW-10/A, the mother of the deceased had identified the appellant-accused as the boy who had run away. She emphasizes that involvement of the appellant-accused was not in doubt as the deceased-victim had told PW-3 Prem Lata, while she was being taken to the hospital that appellant had sprinkled tezab over her (deceased- victim)”

Learned APP specifically denies the allegation that any word or sentence had been subsequently incorporated in the MLC Ex. PW-10/A. Learned APP states that the footprints/foot-marks on the stairs of the house were of the deceased-victim as she was brought down the stairs by PW-2 and PW-3 for being taken to the hospital. She emphasizes that the feet of the deceased-victim were wet with acidic material when she was being taken to the hospital.

She points out that both in FIR Ex.PW-5/A and statement of PW-2, it had been recorded that the deceased-victim had been immediately taken to the bathroom and lot of water had been poured over her body. In support of her contention she refers to the mobile crime team report Ex. PW-6/A.

Learned APP vehemently denies that the statement of the deceased- victim had been recorded at 03.45 p.m. She points out that as per MLC Ex. PW-10/A the deceased-victim was unfit for statement at 05.15 p.m. and was declared fit for statement at 07.30 p.m. by Dr.Inderdeep Singh and only thereafter her statement was recorded by IO PW-19.

She points out that PW-18 in his examination-in-chief had stated that the Investigating Officer after completion of proceedings by the crime team had again gone back to Sunder Lal Jain Hospital. She states that PW-18 had testified that at about 08.20 p.m. the Investigating Officer had handed over rukka to him after endorsement with direction to get the FIR registered. She also states that the Investigating Officer had clarified that the sequence of events were wrongly mentioned in the rukka/tehrir PW-19/A.

Learned APP lastly submits that there is no requirement in law that the dying declaration must necessarily be made before a Magistrate and/or it should be in question-answer form. She points out that the Investigating Officer in his testimony had stated that he had not recorded the deceased‟s statement before a Magistrate, as at that time, he never thought that the victim would not survive.

Learned Counsel for the appellant/Hori Lal, father of the deceased-victim contends that the sentence imposed by the trial court is grossly inadequate inasmuch as it failed to consider the aggravating\circumstances of the case and the conduct of the appellant-accused. Hestates that the sentencing order passed by the trial court needed to be enhanced as the act of the accused was gruesome and it was a pre-planned murder of a young innocent and helpless girl.

He points out that the Supreme Court in Sevaka Perumal and another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (1991) 2 SCC 471 after referring to the decision in Mahesh Vs. State of M.P., (1987) 3 SCC 80 has held as under:-

Therefore, undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law and society could not long endure under serious threats. If the courts did not protect the injured, the injured would then resort to private vengeance. It is, therefore, the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed etc.

The High Court after listening to both the parties have concluded that PW-2, mother of the deceased-victim – an eye witness – has narrated the entire incident with sufficient particulars and has categorically stated that the appellant-accused had caused death of the deceased-victim.

Not only the statement of PW-2 is trustworthy and inspires confidence, but it is also corroborated by the victim‟s dying declaration as well as PW-3 (neighbour) Prem Lata‟s testimony and appellant-accused‟s disclosure statement which led to recovery of the cane and plastic sack.

It is pertinent to mention that the appellant-accused‟s disclosure statement led to recovery of a cane, which the FSL report confirmed containing „sulphuric acid‟. The Court has the copy of the statement given by her which states the facts.

The appellant-accused‟s submission that the seizure from a public place in the absence of an independent witness could not be relied upon is untenable in law.

Consequently, in view of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the portion of the statement of the appellant-accused that led to the recovery of the cane and plastic sack is admissible in law and the same further corroborates the testimony of PW-2 – eye witness.

The argument that the appellant-accused had not been named as an assailant in the initial DD Entry made by the parents of the deceased-victim Crl.A.No.1075/2017 & Ors. Page 23 of 42 is contrary to the facts as on the right hand side of the PCR form, the name of the appellant-accused had been mentioned almost contemporaneously.

Also the appellant-accused had been identified as the assailant by the deceased-victim in her dying declaration recorded on the date of the incident itself. Consequently, the appellant-accused had been identified as the assailant at the earliest in the contemporaneous records.

As far as the allegation of non-lifting of footprints from the staircase is concerned, this Court is in agreement with the reasoning given by the trial court in the impugned judgement. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced herein below:-

―(c) It is not the case of prosecution that the accused had come to the house of deceased barefooted or that he had left his shoes / slippers at the gate. The footmarks belonging to the accused has neither been set up by the prosecution nor fits in the facts and events. The footmarks can only pertain to the victim Shivani and reflect that her right leg / foot was wet with acidic material when she was taken to the hospital. As per the FIR, Ex.PW5/A and statement of PW-2, Shivani was immediately taken to the bathroom, after sprinkling of Tejab on her, and a lot of water was poured over her body. She was then wrapped in a curtain cloth for being taken to the hospital. The photographs of right footmark indicate that despite being diluted with water, the concentration of acidic material flowing from such foot of Shivani was strong enough to react with surface of stair as to leave its clear sign. The foot-marks and related events, thus, indicate that the assailant had brought highly concentrated corrosive liquid with the intention not to leave anything to chance‖.

This Court is further of the view that the dying declaration of the deceased-victim is trustworthy and inspires confidence.

The argument that the deceased-victim‟s statement was recorded prior to her being declared fit by Dr.Inderdeep Singh at 7.30 p.m. or the implied suggestion by learned counsel for appellant-accused that the statement of PW-2 had been recorded as a dying declaration are incorrect.

It is pertinent to mention that no question pertaining to subsequent addition or interpolation in the MLC had been put either to PW-2 Leela Wati or PW-10 Dr. Ajay Kumar.

Further, Dr. Dilip Kumar, PW-20 had identified the signature and handwriting of Dr. Inderdeep Singh, who had declared the deceased-victim fit for statement.

Consequently, the dying declaration in the present case finds corroboration in the testimonies of other witnesses i.e. PW-2, PW-3, PW-10, PW-18, PW-19, PW-20 as well as MLC.

Further, none of the police officers can be attributed with any kind of ill-feeling against the appellant-accused in the present case.

The defences in the present appeal that appellant-accused had a relationship with elder sister of the deceased-victim and that the assailant was unknown were never put to the eye witness. In fact, the defences put forward in the cross-examination of PW-2 by the appellant-accused were that the deceased-victim had committed suicide and the deceased-victim had physical relationship with the appellant-accused and that he had teased deceased-victim‟s elder sister.

In fact, the post-mortem report of the deceased-victim confirmed that her hymen was intact.

The Court thus concluded that the appeal of the appellant-accused is bereft of merits.

The Court in regard to the appeal of the deceased-victim's father to harden the sentence looks up to the scenario of the present case and judgements delivered by High Courts and Supreme Court in case of similar tune.

It stated that in the present case as the deceased-victim was a defenceless young girl aged about 16 years, who had given no provocation or intimidation and the appellant-accused had decided to eliminate the deceased-victim in a ghastly pre-planned manner, this Court is of the view that the accused‟s punishment needs to be modified as a clear message needs to be sent to the society that those who indulge in acid attack shall not be let off lightly.

The Court thus modified the sentence to "life-imprisonment".

It stated, "The appellant is hereby directed to undergo imprisonment for life i.e. for remainder of his life. It is also directed that the appellant-accused‟s case for remission shall not be considered till he undergoes imprisonment for twenty-five years. The sentence already undergone by the appellant-accused shall be set off."

The Judgement has been delivered by bench comprising of HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN & HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL on 13-05-2019:

Read the Judgement here:

Picture Source :