Delhi District Court
State vs Haseena Begum And Others on 14 February, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. TWINKLE WADHWA
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-02 (NORTH EAST)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
SESSIONS CASE No. 460/2019
FIR No. 151/2019
PS. Dayalpur
U/s. 323 and 326A/34 IPC
Instituted on 24.12.2019
Argued on 01.02.2025
Decided on 14.02.2025
Final Order Accused Shamim is convicted u/s 323 of IPC and
accused Haseena and Shabnam are convicted u/s 326-
A/34 of IPC
State Vs. 1. Haseena Begum
W/o late Mohd. Rafiq,
R/o House No. B-69,
Gali No.1/2 20 number gali,
Near Noori Masjid, Jimauddinpur,
Mustafabad, Delhi.
2. Shabnam, W/o Shareef
R/o B-697, gali no.1/2 20 number gali,
FIR No. 151/2019 State Vs. Haseena Begum and others Page 1 of 25
Digitally signed
by TWINKLE
TWINKLE WADHWA
WADHWA Date:
2025.02.14
15:40:53 +0530
Near Noori Masjid, Jimauddinpur,
Mustafabad, Delhi.
3. Shamim, s/o Mohd. Rafiq,
R/o House No. B-69,
Gali No.1/2 20 number gali,
Near Noori Masjid, Jimauddinpur,
Mustafabad, Delhi.
....Accused persons
JUDGMENT
Brief facts of the case:-
1. This is a case of ingestion of acid to the wife by husband, mother in law and sister in law (jethani). In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on the date of incident i.e. 05.03.2019, her husband was intoxicated and had given her beatings due to which she became almost unconscious. She told her parents and spoke with them. When her in laws came to know about the same her mother in law Haseena bolted the door, her sister in law Shabnam caught her hands and her mother in law forcibly made her ingest the acid thereafter her husband took her to the hospital. On 07.03.2019, she gave two different hand written statements to the IO. In the first statement, she wrote that she had accidentally ingested acid and in the second statement she mentioned that she had ingested acid under anger. After about one and a half month, her brother filed an application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. Her statement was again recorded on 15.04.2019 by SHO, PS Dayalpur under the directions of the order dated 12.04.2019 of Ld. MM, Karkardooma Court. After her FIR No. 151/2019 State Vs. Haseena Begum and others Page 2 of 25 Digitally signed by TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date:
2025.02.14 15:40:58 +0530 statement was recorded on 15.04.2019, on the same day, orders for direction of FIR registration were made. Her fourth statement was recorded by ld. MM on 09.09.2019. On the basis of her statement given on 15.04.2019 and statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. the accused persons were apprehended on 05.09.2019 only. Her husband Shamim was released by the police on furnishing a bond, but accused Haseena and Shabnam were sent to JC.
2. In the present case accused Shamim (husband of complainant ) has been charged for offence under Section 323 IPC and accused Haseena Begum and Shabnam have been charged under section 326A/34 IPC for administering her acid.
Prosecution Evidence.
3. Prosecution has examined 8 witnesses in this case.
4. PW1 Head Constable Sri Ram Chhawali deposed that on 06.03.2019, he was posted at PS Dayalpur and was on duty as Duty Officer from 8:00 am to 4:00 pm. On that day at 9:41 am, an information was received by HC Virender of GTB Hospital that complainant, wife of Shamim aged about 22 years resident of House No. B-188, Gali No.20, New Mustafabad, Delhi, was admitted by her husband after administration of Acid. He recorded this information vide DD No. 18A. This DD was marked to ASI Mohd. Naseem. He has brought the original DD register and attested copy of the same is Ex. PW1/A.
5. PW2 Constable Vikas deposed that on 05.09.2019, he was posted at PS Dayalpur and on that day, he along with Woman Constable Archana and FIR No. 151/2019 State Vs. Haseena Begum and others Page 3 of 25 Digitally signed by TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date:
2025.02.14 15:41:02 +0530 ASI Mohd. Naseem Khan reached at House No. B-69, Gali No.1/2 Gali number 20, near Noori Masjid, Jiauddinpur, Mustafabad, Delhi. Accused Haseena Begum, Shabnam and Shamim met there. Woman Constable Archana took the personal search of accused Haseena Begum and Shabnam and he took the personal search of accused Shamim. Accused Hasseena Begum was arrested (Ex.PW2/B).
6. Accused Shabnam was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW2/C. The personal search of accused Shabnam is Ex. PW2/D. Accused Shamim was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW2/E. The personal search memo of accused Shamim is Ex. PW2/F. PW2 identified all the three accused persons.
7. PW3 R / complainant deposed that she was residing in gali no.20, Mustafabad. She did not remember the house number. On 05.03.2019 at about 9:30 pm, she was present in the room and was doing some work. A marriage was fixed in her parental house and she had to go there to attend the marriage on 07.03.2019. She asked her husband Shamim for going to her parental house for attending marriage but he refused for the same. On this, a quarrel took place between her and her husband Shamim. At that time, he was was in intoxicated state. He gave beatings to her by belt. Due to beatings given by accused Shamim by belt, she cried. On this, her mother in law accused Haseena and her jethani accused Shabnam also reached there. Due to beatings, she fell on the floor. She was feeling giddiness and weakness, and her husband left that room. PW3 requested for water from her mother in law by making some signal. Accused Haseena brought water in a bottle and gave it to her for drinking. She drank water due to which she felt itchy/burning senses in her throat and abdomen. Thereafter, she became unconscious. When FIR No. 151/2019 State Vs. Haseena Begum and others Page 4 of 25 Digitally signed by TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA Date:
WADHWA 2025.02.14 15:41:06 +0530 she regained her consciousness, she found herself in GTB Hospital.
8. Police came in GTB Hospital and at that time her husband Shamim was also present with her in the hospital. Her medical condition was not proper and she told the police about those facts which were told to her by her husband Shamim to tell the police. On the next day, her father and her brother reached the GTB Hospital to whom she told about the actual and complete incident. Later on, she was referred to Apollo Hospital. One judge Sahab came to Apollo Hospital and recorded her statement. Police recorded her statement at GTB Hospital Neither she nor her family members had made any complaint to the Court regarding the non action taken by the police. PW3 identified her signature on her statement Ex. PW3/A. PW3 identified her signature on her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C Ex. PW3/B.
9. PW3 further stated that she did not remember the date and month when her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded. When her mother in law accused Haseena gave her water, her jethani Shabnam was present there. She identified all the three accused persons.
10. In her cross-examination by ld. Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, PW3 deposed that it is correct that she had told the police in her statement Ex. PW3/A that her brother had made a telephonic call on the phone of her nanad and requested to arrange a call with her husband but her husband had not spoken with her brother on phone. She had told the police in her statement Ex. PW3/A that her mother in law Haseena closed the main gate by putting kundi and thereafter her jethani Shubham caught hold of her hand and her mother in law made her to drink Tejab (Tejab Pila Diya) (after giving the FIR No. 151/2019 State Vs. Haseena Begum and others Page 5 of 25 Digitally signed by TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date:
2025.02.14 15:41:09 +0530 aforesaid reply, PW3 again stated that she did not disclose this fact to the police in her statement, however, she again stated that she disclosed this fact in her statement recorded by the police).
11. PW3 further deposed that she remained admitted in GTB Hospital for about 5-6 months and after his discharge from the hospital, she visited the GTB Hospital on many occasions when the doctor called her for follow up. She had taken her treatment from Apollo Hospital for about 5-6 months. PW3 denied that her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded in GTB Hospital. He had studied upto 8 th standard and can read English language to some extent. PW3 affirmed that her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded by Judge Sahab at GTB Hospital. She further affirmed that she had stated truth in her statement Ex PW3/B. She had only indicated for water but accused Haseena made her drink acid. She came to know later after drinking that it was the acid. PW3 further affirmed that the place of occurrence was B-69, Gali No.20, New Mustafabad, Delhi and her brother Jainuddin had filed complaint before the Court for registration of FIR. The said complaint is Ex. PW3/C.
12. In his cross-examination by ld. Counsel for all the accused, PW3 deposed that she had studied upto 7 th class. She can write in Hindi. The distance between her matrimonial house and parental house takes about 5-6 hours to cover via bus. At the hour of incident, she was not having any mobile phone with her. She did not have any personal mobile phone with her while she stayed at her matrimonial houe. She used to talk with her natal family members using the phone of either her husband or her nanad Shameena. She did not make any police complaint against in any of the accused persons or FIR No. 151/2019 State Vs. Haseena Begum and others Page 6 of 25 Digitally signed by TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date:
2025.02.14 15:41:12 +0530 any other member of matrimonial family prior to 05.03.2019 (Vol. She had complained about them to her parents). The accused husband had beaten her with belts and kicks and fists on 3-4 occasions prior to the present incident and she had complained about it to her parents. She affirmed that she used to visit her natal family on some occasions prior to the present incident (Vol. She was not allowed to go there very freely by accused husband. He used to say that it costed money. Due to ill behaviour of husband and other members of the matrimonial family, her natal family members did not want to visit her matrimonial house except when it was absolutely required).
13. PW3 further deposed that on 05.03.2019, at about 9:30 pm, she had called her father from the mobilephone of her jeth namely Sharif, husband of accused Shabnam. She had not sought his permission to use his permission to use his phone but surreptitiously taken it away from under pillow while he was sleeping.
Court Question:-
Q Were you made to ingest acid prior to or after making this phone call?
A. It was afterwards.
14. PW3 further stated that her father had visited her after the incident of forcible ingestion of acid at the hospital. She affirmed that the house where the incident had taken place is located in a thickly populated area. While he was being beaten by her husband, no neighbour came to save her though she had raised alarm. PW3 denied that no neighbour visited as she was not so beaten by her husband. She cannot say if accused husband had got her admitted in the hospital as she was unconscious after the incident and regained her senses in hospital only.FIR No. 151/2019 State Vs. Haseena Begum and others Page 7 of 25 Digitally signed by TWINKLE
TWINKLE WADHWA Date: WADHWA 2025.02.14 15:41:16 +0530 Q. Did you inform the doctor that you were forced by the accused persons to drink acid?
A. She did not tell as firstly, she was not in a position to speak. Secondly, the doctor had not asked her about it. Her husband told the doctor that she had consumed the acid herself.
15. PW3 denied that she was very much in a position to speak or that she did not inform the doctor about the said incident of forcible ingestion as no one had forced her to ingest the acid or that she had myself consumed the same.
Court Question:-
Q. If you were not in a position to speak anything, how did you tell your father about the incident, while in hospital? A. Her father had only asked her if she had consumed acid herself as her husband had told him. She had nodded her head in negative and informed her by making signs/gestures that she was forced to consume it. She could not speak at that time as she was bleeding from her throat.
16. PW3 denied that she was deposing falsely on this aspect and she was very much able to speak to her father as well as the doctor on 06.03.2019. PW3 denied that since no such incident had taken place, she did not inform the doctor that the accused persons had forcibly made me drink acid. Since she remained admitted in GTB and Apollo hospital for a long duration of 5-6 months and was unwell, she cannot tell the exact date when police met her there.
Q. How many times did you faint on the date of the incident?
FIR No. 151/2019 State Vs. Haseena Begum and others Page 8 of 25 Digitally signed by TWINKLETWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date:
2025.02.14 15:41:19 +0530 A. Once, when she was beaten brutally by her husband with belts and kicks and fists, she had almost fainted as she had weakness and suffered giddiness. Thereafter, she asked for water by making gesture as she was almost semi conscious, she was administered acid instead of water and thereafter she fainted again.
17. When the police had visited her for the first time, she had given them in writing about the incident. It was her own handwriting. PW3 affirmed that document dated 07.03.2019 i.e. Ex. PW3/D1 bears her signature at point A and it is in her handwriting. It is further affirmed that another document dated 07.03.2019 i.e. Ex. PW3/D2 also bears signature at point B. She had told the judge who had recorded her statement that she was forced to drink acid by the accused persons.
18. PW4 retired SI Naresh Kumar deposed that on 21.04.2019, he was posted as SI at PS Dayalpur and on that day, he was deputed as duty officer from 4:00 pm to 12:00 midnight. At about 7:55 pm, ASI Mohd. Naseem Khan handed over to him rukka for registration of FIR. On the basis of said rukka (already Ex. PW3/A), he registered the abovesaid FIR under Section 323/328/34 IPC vide DD No.60A dated 21.04.2019. He made endorsement on the said rukka from point B and same bears signature on point C. Computer print out of FIR is Ex. PW4/P-1. He also issued certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act pertaining computer FIR is Ex. PW4/P-2.
19. PW5 Woman Constable Archana Sharma deposed that on 05.09.2019, she was posted as Constable at PS Dayalpur and on that day, she FIR No. 151/2019 State Vs. Haseena Begum and others Page 9 of 25 Digitally signed by TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA Date:
WADHWA 2025.02.14 15:41:23 +0530 along with Constable Vikas joined investigation with ASI Mohd. Naseem Khan. She along with Constable Vikas and IO went to Jiauddinpur, Mustafabad, Delhi in street no.20, however, she did not recollect the house number. At the said house, accused Haseena, Shabnam and accused Shamim met them and they were apprehended. The custody of said females i.e. accused Haseena and Shabnam were handed over to her while custody of accused Shamim was handed over to Constable Vikas by the IO. She did not remember if IO prepared arresting papers of the accused Haseena and Shabnam. PW5 identified her signatures on the arrest memos and personal search memos of accused Haseena Begum (Ex. PW2/A and Ex. PW2/B), accused Shabnam (Ex. PW2/C and Ex. PW2/D) and accused Shamim (Ex.PW2/E and Ex. PW2/F). PW5 identified accused Haseena Begum and Shabnam, however, she did not identify accused Shamim due to lapse of time.
20. During her testimony, the ld. Additional Public Prosecutor put a leading question to PW5 which is as below:
Q. I put to you that accused persons were arrested from House No.B-69, ½ Gali no.20, near Noori Masjid, Jiauddinpur, Mustafabad, Delhi . What do you want to say?
A. Yes, now I have recollected the same.
21. In cross-examination, PW5 deposed that they reached the house of accused persons around 11/11:30 am. Only the accused persons were present in the house. He cannot say if any DD entry was recorded by the IO at the time of departure from PS. She denied that none of accused persons were arrested from their house and they had themselves gone to PS as they were innocent and wanted to put forth their version to the police authorities.FIR No. 151/2019 State Vs. Haseena Begum and others Page 10 of 25
Digitally signed by TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date:
2025.02.14 15:41:26 +0530
22. PW6 Dr. Saurabh Uniyal deposed that on 05.03.2019, she was posted as CMO at GTB Hospital and on that day, Dr Mohd. Wasim, JR was also working there under his supervision. The MLC No.A-5452/7/19 is in the writing of Dr. Mohd. Wasim. PW6 can identify the handwriting and signature of Dr. Mohd. Wasim. Dr. Mohd. Wasim had left the hospital long back and his present whereabouts are not know to the hospital. The aforesaid MLC is Ex.
PW6/A.
23. PW7 Dr. Manwendra Kumar, Assistant Professor deposed that he was posted as Sr. resident in GTB Hospital on 05.03.2019 and he had given his opinion regarding the injuries in the MLC No.63706 of victim / complainant (Ex.PW6/A) and he had signed on the MLC in this regard. As per his opinion, the victim had suffered grievous injuries.
24. In his cross-examination, PW7 deposed that he had examined the patient during her hospitalization in GTB Hospital as she was patient of his unit. When a patient visits them with history of assault or acid attack they do not write the name of assailant generally.
25. PW8 SI Mohd. Naseem Khan deposed that on 06.03.2019, he was posted as ASI at PS Dayalpur and on that day, he received information vide DD No. 18A which is Ex. PW1/A regarding admission of complainant wife of Shamim, aged about 22 years was admitted to GTB Hospital, after consuming acid. He reached the hospital and collected her MLC. She was unfit for statement. He returned back to PS. He again went to the hospital on 07.03.2019. The victim was not in a position to speak, so he gave her paper and pen to write her statement. She wrote her statement Ex.PW3/D-1. When FIR No. 151/2019 State Vs. Haseena Begum and others Page 11 of 25 Digitally signed by TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date:
2025.02.14 15:41:29 +0530 he was about to leave the hospital after one hour, she again called him and requested him for pen and paper. He provided the same to her and she again wrote down her statement Ex. PW3/D2. DD was kept pending. Later on, the brother of victim Zainuddin Saifi moved an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. in the Court. Direction was given by the court to SHO concerned to register a case in the present matter. Statement of the victim was recorded by SHO Tarkeshwar Singh at GTB Hospital Ex. PW3/A. The same was handedover to him by the SHO. He made endorsement Ex. PW8/A. The present FIR was registered and the investigation was marked to him. He went to the spot and prepared site plan Ex. PW8/B. He looked for accused persons but they were not traceable. On 30.05.2019, section 328 IPC was deleted and section 326A IPC was added in the FIR.
26. PW8 further stated that on 05.09.2019, he along with Woman Constable Archana and Constable Vikas commenced the investigation. He along with Constable Vikas and Masjid, Jiauddinpur, Mustafabad, Delhi.At the said house, accused Haseena, Shabnam and Shamim met them and they were apprehended. The custody of said females i.e. accused Haseena and Shabnam were handed over to lady Constable Archana while custody of accused Shamim was handedover to Constable Vikas by him. All the accused persons were arrested in this case. He prepared documents in this regard. PW8 identified his signatures on the arrest memos and personal search memos of accused Haseena Begum (Ex. PW2/A and Ex. PW2/B), accused Shabnam (Ex. PW2/C and Ex. PW2/D) and accused Shamim (Ex.PW2/E and Ex.
PW2/F). PW8 identified accused Haseena Begum, Shabnam and Shamim in the Court. Accused Shamim was released on bail. Other two accused persons FIR No. 151/2019 State Vs. Haseena Begum and others Page 12 of 25 Digitally signed by TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date:
2025.02.14 15:41:32 +0530 were produced before the Court and were sent to JC. On 09.09.2019, he moved an application for recording the statement of victim before the Court and the same is Ex. PW8/C. The application was allowed and the statement of the victim was recorded at the GTB Hospital by the Ld. MM. The same is Ex.PW8/D (the exhibition of the copy of statement was not disputed by the Ld. Defence counsel). He obtained the copy of the statement and placed the same on the file. Earlier on 29.05.2019, he had deposited the MLC of the GTB Hospital for obtaining the opinion on the injury and on 25.08.2019, he collected the MLC on which doctors had opined the nature of injury as grievous. He completed the investigation and prepared the charge sheet.
27. In his cross-examination, PW8 deposed that he reached the hospital in the evening of 06.03.2019. Husband of the injured, accused Shamim met him in the hospital at that time. On 07.03.2019, he went to the hospital in the afternoon hours. It is affirmed that the statement which was written by the injured had no allegation against anybody. It is affirmed that Ex PW3/D-1 and Ex. PW3/D-2 were written in his presence by the victim and he had also put his signatures on the aforesaid statement at point X. It is also correct that in both statements initially the victim had not levelled any allegations. PW8 denied that the victim had later on levelled false allegations in order to falsely implicate the accused persons under the influence of her family members. He had visited the spot after registration of the FIR. He had verified from the neighbours regarding the incident but none of them mentioned anything about the allegations of the victim against the accused persons. It is name of any of the accused persons. It is denied that he had not conducted the investigation properly and farely and falsely implicated the FIR No. 151/2019 State Vs. Haseena Begum and others Page 13 of 25 Digitally signed by TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date:
2025.02.14 15:41:35 +0530 accused persons at the behest of the victim and her family members.
28. On 30.01.2023 accused Haseena Begum, Shabnam and Shamim admitted copy of the FIR No. 151/2019 dated 21.04.2019 at PS Dayalpur registered by SI Naresh Kumar i.e. Ex. PW4/P-1 u/s 294 Cr.P.C.
29. Further, on 10.01.2025, accused Shamim, Shabnam and Haseena Begum admitted the recording of the statement of the victim under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and contents are denied, u/s 294 Cr.P.C.
30. On 15.01.2025, statements of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein they have denied their involvement and opted not to lead evidence.
Findings
31. The first and foremost contention of the ld. Defence counsel is that the complainant has mentioned in her second statement made on 07.03.2019 that she was given beatings by her husband by belt which is Ex.PW3/D2. She also mentioned in the statement, on the basis of which FIR was registered Ex.PW3/A that her husband had beaten her with belt and mother in law and sister in law made her drink acid. In her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she had mentioned that 05.03.2019 her husband was intoxicated and given her beatings when she requested him to let her go to a marriage in her parent's house. After beating her, he left the house and she became unconscious. Her mother in law and sister in law Shabnam administered her acid.
32. Perusal of these statements would show that complainant had mentioned that she was given beatings by belt. Further in her statement FIR No. 151/2019 State Vs. Haseena Begum and others Page 14 of 25 Digitally signed by TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA Date: WADHWA 2025.02.14 15:41:39 +0530 recorded before the Court, she had also mentioned of giving her beatings by belt. It is submitted that perusal of MLC would show that no external injuries were found at the time of examination on her body. Hence she levelled false allegations of beatings given to her by her husband.
33. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the accused, Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and have gone through the case file.
34. It is pertinent to mention here that beatings by belt may not always cause external visible injuries or scar in every case. Beatings with a belt can cause significant pain and trauma, but depending on the force use, the impact and the depending on the skin sensitivity of a person, there may not be visible external injuries. A person, who has sensitive skin, may receive injury which is externally visible if use of a belt is with force. Further, a belt strike may cause deep tissue damage under the skin but it may not be visible especially in cases of persons with darker skin tones. Further, if a doctor conducts only a surface level examination, they might not be able to detect deep tissue injuries or pains in case immediate sign of beatings on the body is absent. Further, clothing also acts as a barrier and may absorb some of the impact and can reduce external marks. Further injury would depend on the kind of belt use. Needless to say the above observation made is very basic one which any person with average intelligence would know about the impact of beatings with belt and does not need to be supported with any medical journal or any other such medical paper.
35. Needless to say that the injured was made to ingest acid and was unable to speak, she had stated in her cross-examination that she was bleeding from throat. She had also stated that she was unable to speak and her husband FIR No. 151/2019 State Vs. Haseena Begum and others Page 15 of 25 Digitally signed by TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date:
2025.02.14 15:41:42 +0530 had told doctor that she ingested the acid herself. In such circumstances when she was herself unable to speak and was under acute pain in her throat and abdomen due to acid ingestion, it was not possible for her to tell the doctor that she was given beatings by her husband. Further, she has through out stated in all her statements that she was given beatings by her husband and in her statement on the basis of which FIR was registered and in section 164 Cr.P.C. statement, she specifically stated that she was given beatings with belt. She has been cross-examined on this aspect and there is absolutely nothing in her statement for this Court to come to the conclusion that she is not speaking the truth. Further it is not a bold statement on her part that she was given beatings. Rather in the FIR she has specifically given the reason that she wanted to attend marriage at her parent's house and when she requested her husband for the same, he had given beatings with belt under intoxication.
36. The same statement has been given by her in her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. in which she had specifically mentioned the reason and occasions which has resulted in improper behaviour and conduct on the part of her husband whereby leading to beatings given to her.
37. Such facts which are the occasions or cause of the relevant facts are admissible in section 7 of the Indian Evidence Act as well as Section 9 of Indian Evidence Act. The fact that she requested her husband to let her go to the marriage which agitated her husband is explaining the reason of given beatings to her with belt and is relevant under Section 9 of Indian Evidence Act.
38. In view of the above it is proved that she was given beatings with belt by her husband on 05.03.2019 and hence accused Shamim is hereby held FIR No. 151/2019 State Vs. Haseena Begum and others Page 16 of 25 Digitally signed by TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date:
2025.02.14 15:41:45 +0530 guilty for the said offence u/s 323 IPC.
39. Her mother in law and sister in law have been charged under Section 326A IPC for voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid. It is submitted that she has given different statements in this case. In her first statement which she gave in her own writing to the police Ex. PW3/D1, she has mentioned that while she was eating food, her one year old son had brought bottle of acid and kept near her. She drank it thinking it to be water. While in her second statement Ex. PW3/D2 given on 07.03.2019 in her own hand writing, she mentioned that at night she was given beatings, she had called her father but her husband came to know about the same and he had given her beatings again. Under anger, she drank acid herself after which her voice stopped coming. There is no fault of her in-laws or her husband. It is further mentioned that please do not torture anyone, she does not want to make case against anyone and nobody is at fault. It is submitted that perusal of these two statements which were given immediately after the incident, and are the first statement which were given after the incidents, do not mention about mother in law or sister in law at all. However her brother filed an application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and under the influence of her family members, she had mentioned about the acts of her mother in law and sister in law. She again reiterated their role in her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. However these statements were recorded much later i.e. FIR was registered on the basis of statement which was recorded on 15.04.2019 and section 164 Cr.P.C. statement was recorded on 09.09.2019, these statements are after thought and made under influence in consultation with her own family members. However, this argument is not correct.
FIR No. 151/2019 State Vs. Haseena Begum and others Page 17 of 25 Digitally signed by TWINKLETWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date:
2025.02.14 15:41:48 +0530
40. After ingestion of acid on 05.03.2019, her condition was serious and she was declared repeatedly unfit for statement as is mentioned in MLC. However, she was declared fit for statement for the first time on 20.03.2019. The same is clearly visible on the MLC. When she was brought to the hospital, her condition was obviously very serious as her voice had stopped coming, and there was effect of acid on her throat, neck, abdomen and other body parts. She was not in a position to speak. What was the urgency on her part to give the statement in writing on 07.03.2019 ?
41. Her condition was so serious that she was bleeding from throat as is mentioned in her statement in Court. There were chances that she would loose her voice and she was in acute pain. Why would she make such statement in writing when her own physical condition was extremely bad? It appears that at that time since her husband and in laws were accompanying her, they were pressurizing her for giving this statement as is contended by the prosecution. When she was unfit for statement, IO also did not make any effort nor shown any hurry in recording her statement yet she gave herself in writing; it appears that her in laws were pressurizing her to give such statement to the police so that further investigation does not take place and matter is closed. What is the relevance of such statement given by complainant when she was under acute pain and was declared unfit for statement by the doctor?
42. The statement must be given voluntarily, without coercion, threat or undue influence, the complainant must be in a fit mental and physical condition to comprehend and express her statements clearly. Severe pain, trauma may impair cognitive abilities. Further she was under influence of FIR No. 151/2019 State Vs. Haseena Begum and others Page 18 of 25 Digitally signed by TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date:
2025.02.14 15:41:52 +0530 drugs at that time, even perusal of the MLC would show that immediately on examination, she was prescribed injection with intra venus fluids. These injections were to be given through glucose directly in her blood as mentioned in MLC (I/V). This itself shows that she must be vomiting, showing extreme symptoms of unrest in abdomen, she must be in mental shock. All these reasons affect and impair judgment making and coherent abilities. Further perusal of these hand written statements would show that they are not written in a flow, especially Ex. PW3/D2; there are several cuttings, over writings in these statements.
43. In the circumstances, the hand written statements Ex. PW3/D1 and Ex. PW3/D2 cannot be said to be made voluntarily or in a fit state of mental and physical condition. These statements cannot be read in evidence against her.
44. Perusal of her statement dated 15.04.2019 would show that she has specifically mentioned that on the date of incident, at around 9:00 pm while she was cutting vegetables, she expressed her desire to her husband to attend a wedding in her family. Her husband was in drunken condition and refused to let her go and also beaten her with belt, then she became unconscious. As she regained consciousness, she spoke with her father on phone and told him everything. Her father tried to speak with her husband by calling on the mobile of her sister in law but he refused to speak. Then her mother in law Haseena bolted the door and her sister in law held her hands, and then her mother in law forcibly made her drank acid. She started feeling unwell and her husband took her to the hospital. Similarly, in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she has narrated this event. However it is contended FIR No. 151/2019 State Vs. Haseena Begum and others Page 19 of 25 Digitally signed by TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date:
2025.02.14 15:41:55 +0530 that in section 164 Cr.P.C. statement, she did not mention that her mother in law bolted the door and forcibly made her drink acid. It is only mentioned that her mother in law asked her to drink water and her mother in law and sister in law gave her acid. However it is not necessary that every statement should be a carbon copy of each other. With the passage of time, it is human tendency to forget some events or some details while narrating the same events. Human mind is to blur with the passage of time. Reliance is placed on the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Indian titled as Goverdhan and Anr. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh in Criminal Appeal No. 116 of 2011 dt. 09.01.2025. The relevant extract from the judgment is as follows:
"52. Further, this Court also cautioned about attaching too much importance on minor discrepancies of the evidence of the witnesses in Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat (1983) 3 SCC 217 as follows:
"5. ... We do not consider it appropriate or permissible to enter upon a reappraisal or reappreciation of the evidence in the context of the minor discrepancies painstakingly highlighted by the learned counsel for the appellant. Overmuch importance cannot be attached to minor discrepancies. The reasons are obvious: (1) By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen. (2) Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details. (3) The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind, whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another. (4) By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human FIR No. 151/2019 State Vs. Haseena Begum and others Page 20 of 25 Digitally signed by TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA Date: WADHWA 2025.02.14 15:42:01 +0530 tape-recorder.
(5) In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guess work on the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time-sense of individuals which varies from person to person. (6) Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which takes place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on. (7) A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing crossexamination made by the counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The subconscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him--perhaps it is a sort of a psychological defence mechanism activated on the spur of the moment."
53. To the same effect it was also observed in Appabhai v. State of Gujarat (1988) Supp SCC 241 as follows:
"13. ... The court while appreciating the evidence must not attach undue importance to minor discrepancies. The discrepancies which do not shake the basic version of the prosecution case may be discarded. The discrepancies which are due to normal errors of perception or observation should not be given importance. The errors due to lapse of memory may be given due allowance. The court by calling into aid its vast experience of men and matters in different cases must evaluate the entire material on record by excluding the exaggerated version given by any witness. When a doubt arises in respect of certain facts alleged by such witness, the proper course is to ignore that fact only unless it goes into the root of the matter so as to demolish the entire prosecution story. The witnesses nowadays go on adding embellishments to their version perhaps for the fear of their testimony being rejected by the court. The courts, however, should not disbelieve the evidence of such witnesses altogether if FIR No. 151/2019 State Vs. Haseena Begum and others Page 21 of 25 Digitally signed by TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA Date: WADHWA 2025.02.14 15:42:05 +0530 they are otherwise trustworthy. Jaganmohan Reddy, J. speaking for this Court in Sohrab v. State of M.P. [(1972) 3 SCC 751 : 1972 SCC (Cri) 819] observed : [SCC p. 756, para 8 : SCC (Cri) p. 824, para 8] '8. ... This Court has held that falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not a sound rule for the reason that hardly one comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggeration, embroideries or embellishments. In most cases, the witnesses when asked about details venture to give some answer, not necessarily true or relevant for fear that their evidence may not be accepted in respect of the main incident which they have witnessed but that is not to say that their evidence as to the salient features of the case after cautious scrutiny cannot be considered....'"
55. This Court also reminded that while dealing with the evidence of witnesses who are rustic, because of minor inconsistencies, the evidence should not be ignored. It was held in Prabhu Dayal v. State of Rajasthan, (2018) 8 SCC 127 wherein dealing with witnesses from rustic background it was observed as follows;
"18. It is a common phenomenon that the witnesses are rustic and can develop a tendency to exaggerate. This, however, does not mean that the entire testimony of such witnesses is falsehood. Minor contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses are not fatal to the case of the prosecution. This Court, in State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony [State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony, (1985) 1 SCC 505 : 1985 SCC (Cri) 105], held that inconsistencies and discrepancies alone do not merit the rejection of the evidence as a whole. It stated as follows : (SCC p. 514-15, para 10) "10. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the court to scrutinise the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper-technical approach by taking FIR No. 151/2019 State Vs. Haseena Begum and others Page 22 of 25 Digitally signed by TWINKLE TWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date:
2025.02.14 15:42:08 +0530 sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. If the court before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of evidence given by the witness, the appellate court which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the trial court and unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would not be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details. Even honest and truthful witnesses may differ in some details unrelated to the main incident because power of observation, retention and reproduction differ with individuals. Cross- examination is an unequal duel between a rustic and refined lawyer. Having examined the evidence of this witness, a friend and well-wisher of the family carefully giving due weight to the comments made by the learned counsel for the respondent and the reasons assigned to by the High Court for rejecting his evidence simultaneously keeping in view the appreciation of the evidence of this witness by the trial court, we have no hesitation in holding that the High Court was in error in rejecting the testimony of witness Nair whose evidence appears to us trustworthy and credible."
45. Rather if a witness is not stating the exact events, it means that he/she is deposing the truth and statement has not been made by reading the earlier statement. Needless to say that the date of incident is 05.03.2019 and she remained in hospital for 5-6 months which is a considerable period of pain and trauma, which she had undergone. These small inconsistencies would not vitiate her statement. She has reiterated the facts in her statement before the Court also. She has been cross-examined in detail, there is nothing in her testimony to show that she is not deposing the truth. Further, she had also stated that after GTB Hospital, she had also taken treatment from Apollo Hospital for 5-6 months.
FIR No. 151/2019 State Vs. Haseena Begum and others Page 23 of 25 Digitally signedTWINKLE by TWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date: 2025.02.14 15:42:12 +0530
46. It is argued that there is no prior complaint by complainant against in-laws. She stated in her cross-examination that prior to 05.03.2019, she had never made any police complaint against her in laws but made Complaint to her parents. However a woman who is not willing to stay away from her husband and wants to save her married life might not complaint. Further she had also stated that due to ill behaviour of her husband and other in laws, her parents are not willing to visit her matrimonial home.
47. Further her two hand written statements were put to her in the cross-examination and she admitted that these are in her own hand writings. However she was not asked to explain the reason for making such inconsistent statements and cross-examination was deferred at the request of counsel for the accused persons, but thereafter accused did not examine her and right to cross-examination was closed. Hence, to read the statement against complaint which is inconsistent with her case, the prior statement should have been put to the witness but in this case, her prior inconsistent statements were not put to her and she could not explain the same as accused did not conduct cross-examination thereafter. Hence, these statements cannot be read against her. Hence the argument that in the earlier statement name of mother in law and sister in law is not mentioned, cannot be read against the complaint. There could be any number of reasons for not making earlier such statements in writing.
48. Hence, accused Haseena and Shabnam are convicted for offence under Section 326-A / 34 of IPC.
FIR No. 151/2019 State Vs. Haseena Begum and others Page 24 of 25 Digitally signed by TWINKLETWINKLE WADHWA WADHWA Date:
2025.02.14 15:42:16 +0530 Conclusion:-
49. In the circumstances and in view of the above discussion, all accused persons stand convicted of charged offences. Accused Shamim is convicted for offence under Section 323 of IPC. Accused Haseena and Shabnam are convicted for offence under Section 326-A / 34 of IPC.
Digitally signed by TWINKLEAnnounced in Open Court TWINKLE WADHWA
WADHWA Date:
2025.02.14
as on 14.02.2025 15:42:20 +0530
( Twinkle Wadhwa )
Additional Sessions Judge-02
North East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
FIR No. 151/2019 State Vs. Haseena Begum and others Page 25 of 25