Chattisgarh High Court
Lalu Soni vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 February, 2025
-1-
2025:CGHC:9660
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 228 of 2022
Lalu Soni, S/o Late Shri Arjun Soni, aged about 71 years, R/o Ward No.15,
Maruti Ward Kabirpara, Kawardha, District- Kabirdham (CG) (In Jail)
... Appellant(s)
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station -Kawardha, District-
Kabirdham (CG)
...
Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Waquar Naiyer, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer.
SB: Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Judgment on Board 25/02/2025
1. Though, today the present appeal is listed for hearing on I.A. No.01 of 2022, which is an application under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, but with the consent of learned counsel for Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA the parties and considering the age of the appellant and his period of Date:
2025.03.03 13:05:56 +0530 detention, the appeal is heard finally.-2-
2. Accordingly, I.A. No. 01 of 2022 stands disposed of.
3. This criminal appeal filed by the appellant/accused under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29th October 2021 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kabirdham (Kawardha) (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.39 of 2020, whereby the appellant/accused has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner :
CONVICTION SENTENCE U/s 326-A of IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 02 months. Fine amount of Rs.25000/- to be paid to the victim as an amount of compensation.
4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 15.07.2020 at 8:00 p.m., Kanti Bai (PW2) was preparing food in her house situated at Naya Talab Paar Kawardha. At that time, her grand-daughter Deepali Mallah came and told that her father Mukesh alias Golu (PW1) (victim/complainant) had gone to the house of accused and he told the accused/appellant that daughter of the accused abuses both the children of Mukesh every day, upon which, accused thrown acid on Mukesh which was kept in a liquor bottle, due to which, Mukesh sustained acid burn injuries. Purain Yadav, Rajendra Yadav, Malti Soni -3- and Guddu Yadav were also standing in front of house of accused. Mukesh was taken to the hospital for treatment. On the report of Kanti Bai (PW2), FIR was registered against the accused/appellant. Victim Mukesh was sent for medical examination. During course of investigation, an inspection of the crime scene was conducted, and a site map (Ex.P-3) was prepared based on the statement of Kanti Bai (PW2). On 16.07.2020, appellant-accused was interrogated and his memorandum statement was recorded in Ex.P-2. At the instance of appellant, one empty bottle of liquor was seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P-4). Appellant was taken into custody. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Article seized from the possession of the appellant was sent for its chemical examination to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur and report of the same has been received.
5. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused/appellant under Section 326-A of IPC before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kawardha, District - Kabirdham, wherefrom the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Kabirdham, who has conduced the trial. Learned trial Court framed charges against the appellant under Section 326-A of IPC which was denied by the appellant and he prayed for trial of his case.
6. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited 13 documents i.e. Ex. P-1 to P-13. Statement of accused person was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied all incriminating evidence appearing against him, pleaded innocence and false implication and in his defence, he has -4- also examined one witness as DW-1.
7. The learned Sessions Judge, Kawardha after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record vide impugned judgment dated 29th October 2021 convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph -3 of this order. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the instant appeal under Section 374 of CrPC has been preferred by the appellant.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant is a Goldsmith by profession and there was previous fight between daughters of the complainant and appellant and daughter of the appellant was not of sound mind and on the date of incident, again a quarrel took place between daughter of the complainant and appellant and the complainant/victim had intervened the quarrel. There was scuffle between the two and acid which is used for cleaning and melting of gold has been inadvertently fallen on the body of complainant, due to which, it is stated, complainant suffered acid burn injuries on his person and he also lost his one of the eyes in the acid attack. He submits that even if the case of prosecution is taken on its face value, the case would be covered under Section 335 of IPC as the incident occurred on a grave and sudden provocation. There was no premeditated mind to cause grievous hurt to the victim by use of acid. The appellant has served out 4 years 7 months and 9 days of jail sentence and offence under Section 335 of IPC is punishable for term which may extend to 4 years or with a fine which may extend to Rs.2000/- or with both. It is stated that the appellant as on date is aged -5- about 75 years and he is in jail since 16.07.2020, hence, the conviction of the appellant be altered to under Section 335 of IPC in place of Section 326-A of IPC as the grievous hurt was caused on account of grave and sudden provocation without any premeditated mind.
9. Learned State counsel opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and submits that there is no illegality and infirmity committed by the learned trial Court in convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence as alleged against him as the victim has received acid burn injuries and he has also lost his one of the eyes.
10.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court including the impugned judgment.
11.Section 326-A of IPC deals with voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid etc. It was enacted and inserted by the Act 13 of 2013 w.r.e.f. 03.02.2013. It was introduced to specifically address the heinous crime of throwing acid or any corrosive substance with intent to cause permanent or partial damage or deformity to, or burns or maims or disfigure or disables any part or parts of the body of a person, whereas, Section 335 of IPC provides for voluntarily causing grievous hurt on provocation which reads as under:-
"335. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt on provocation- Whoever [voluntarily] causes grievous hurt on grave and sudden provocation, if he neither intends nor knows himself to be likely to cause grievous hurt to any person other than the person who gave -6- the provocation, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to four years, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees,or with both".
12.On close scrutiny of the evidence of complainant Mukesh alias Golu (PW1) it appears that there was a previous altercation between the parties on the issue of hurling abuses on daughter of complainant by the daughter of appellant/accused who was not keeping sound mind. On the date of incident, this altercation again took place which led to sudden and grave provocation and due to this sudden and grave provocation, appellant/accused who is a Goldsmith by profession thrown acid on the complainant which was kept in the house, causing grievous injuries to him.
13.Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case which emerges out from the evidence available on record, particularly the evidence of victim Mukesh alias Golu (PW1), the circumstances in which the incident is alleged to have happened due to sudden and grave provocation and further considering the age of the appellant to be 75 years as on date, as in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. his age has been shown to be 68 years, he is in jail since 16.07.2020, I am of the view that it is a fit case where the conviction of the appellant can be altered from Section 326-A of IPC to Section 335 of IPC.
14.Accordingly, conviction of the appellant by the trial Court under Section 326-A of IPC is altered to under Section 335 of IPC and he is -7- sentenced to undergo RI for 4 years. Since the appellant has already undergone more than 4 years of jail sentence he is directed to be released forthwith if not required to be detained in connection with any other case.
15.Further, as the fact relating to acid attack on the victim was found proved and as a result of acid attack, apart from sustaining other injuries, the victim has lost his one eye forever and as learned counsel for the appellant has conceded before this Court that the fine amount of Rs.25,000/- imposed by the trial Court may be paid as compensation to the victim because the offence under which the appellant has now been convicted by this Court i.e. under Section 335 of IPC, fine which can be imposed may extend to two thousand rupees, I am of the view that victim is entitled for compensation in terms of provision of Section 357 of Cr.P.C. which specifically provides for compensation to the victims of acid attack. Accordingly, the accused is directed to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the victim within a period of one month from today, before the learned trial Court concerned, in default, he shall suffer rigorous imprisonment of 6 months.
16.The amount of compensation so deposited by the appellant/accused before the trial Court shall be paid to the victim/complainant Mukesh alias Golu on moving appropriate application on his behalf, upon proper identification and verification.
17.The appeal is accordingly allowed in part to the extent and in the manner indicated above.
-8-
18.Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/-
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Praveen