Patna High Court
Binod Mahto vs The State Of Bihar on 3 December, 2024
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1402 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-244 Year-2018 Thana- HASANPUR District- Samastipur
======================================================
1. Binod Mahto, Son of Ram Jivan Mahto, Resident of Village- Chandrapur,
P.S.- Hasanpur, District- Samastipur.
2. Darshan Kumar, Son of Binod Mahto, Resident of Village- Chandrapur, P.S.-
Hasanpur, District- Samastipur.
... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate
Mrs. Vaishnavi Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent-State: Mr. A.M.P. Mehta, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 03-12-2024
This appeal has been preferred by the
appellants/convicts under Section 374(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Cr.P.C.')
challenging the impugned judgment of conviction dated
24.11.2020and order of sentence dated 28.11.2020 respectively passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-1st Rosera, Samastipur in Sessions Trial No.335 of 2019 arising out of Hassanpur P.S. Case No.244 of 2018, whereby the concerned Trial Court has convicted the appellants/convicts for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1402 of 2021 dt.03-12-2024 2/65 447/149, 341/149, 323/149, 324/149, 326-A/149, 326- B/149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 148 of the IPC, imprisonment for one month under Section 447/149 of the IPC, imprisonment for one year under Section 323/149 of the IPC, rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs.30,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 326-A/149 of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 326-B/149 of the IPC. However, all the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.
2. In brief, case of prosecution, as per written report of informant/PW-5 namely, Rajesh Kumar given to the Officer Incharge of Hasanpur Police Station, inter alia that on 18.11.2018 at about 9:30 A.M., his niece, namely, Nibha Kumari aged about 17 years was going towards darwaja (courtyard) from the house and when she reached near to Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1402 of 2021 dt.03-12-2024 3/65 darwaja, Pappu Kumar and Pankaj Kumar started teasing her. The niece of informant raised alarm and on so, Rakesh Kumar, Raghvendra Kumar, Sobhakant Mahto, Arbind Mahto, Priti Kumari, Swati Kumar, Arvind Mahto, Kanchanmala, Amerika Devi, Pramila Devi arrived there. In the meantime, Binod Mahto (appellant), Ram Pravesh Mahto, Ramjivan Mahto, Darshan Kumar (appellant), Premsheela Devi, Rekha Devi, Soni Kumari, Bandana Kumari, Darshania Devi and 3-5 unknown persons armed with lathi, danda, pistol and acid arrived there. The Binod Mahto (appellant), Pappu, Darshan (appellant) and Pankaj brought acid and started abusing and assaulting them, whereafter, Binod Mahto (appellant), Pappu, Darshan (appellant) and Pankaj poured acid on them, as a result of which, Raghvendra Kumar, Nibha Kumari, Rakesh Kumar became badly injured and, thereafter, several persons came there and brought injured for treatment at Primary Health Centre, Hasanpur and from there, Rakesh Kumar, Raghvendra Kumar and Nibha Kumari were referred to Sadar Hospital, Samastipur for better and specialized treatment.
3. On the basis of aforesaid written information, a Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1402 of 2021 dt.03-12-2024 4/65 formal FIR, being Hasanpur P.S. Case No.244 of 2018 was registered for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 326-A, 326-B 307, 354, 504 and 506 of the IPC as to investigate the crime in question.
4. After completion of investigation, on the basis of materials collected thereof, the Investigating Officer of this case has submitted charge-sheet No.205 of 2018 dated 30.12.2018 against Binod Mahto (appellant), Darshan Kumar (appellant) and other co-accused namely, Ramjivan Mahto under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 324, 326-A, 326- B, 341, 354, 504 and 506 of the IPC and supplementary investigation was continued against rest of the co-accused persons. After submission of charge-sheet, the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate took cognizance of the offences on 08.01.2019 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 324, 326-A, 326-B, 341, 354, 504 and 506 of the IPC. Thereafter, the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate has committed the case to the court of Sessions under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C., after compliance of Section 207 of Cr.P.C., whereafter it was transferred to the court of learned Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1402 of 2021 dt.03-12-2024 5/65 Additional Sessions Judge-II, Rosera, for its trial and disposal.
5. The learned trial court after going through materials collected during investigation, framed charges under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 447, 323, 324, 307, 326-A, 326-B, 354, 504 and 506 of the IPC against the appellants and other co-accused, namely, Ram Jiwan Mahto on 01.07.2019, which were explained to appellants/convicts, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. To substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined altogether fourteen (14) witnesses. They are:- (i) PW-1 Arvind Mahto; (ii) PW-2 Rakesh Kumar; (iii) PW-3 Shobhakant Mahto; (iv) PW-4 Priti Kumari, (v) PW-5 Rajesh Kumar (informant); (vi) PW-6 Pramila Devi; (vii) PW-7 Nibha Kumari (viii) PW-8 Raghvendra Kumar, (ix) PW-9 Dr. Arvind Kumar; (x) PW-10 Dr. Vimal Rai; (xi) PW-11 Tunanand Singh (Investigating Officer of this case); (xii) PW-12 Dr. Prabhu Dayal Sharma; (xiii) PW-13 Dr. Hemant Kumar Singh; and
(xiv) PW-14 Dr. A.N. Shahi.
7. Apart from the oral evidence, the prosecution Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1402 of 2021 dt.03-12-2024 6/65 has also relied upon following exhibits/documentary evidences, which are as under:-
Sl.No. Exhibit Nos. Documents exhibited
1. Exhibit-1 Written report.
2. Exhibit-1/1 Signature of informant on written report.
3. Exhibit-1/2 Pagination on written report.
4. Exhibit-1/3 Signature of the then S.H.O. on formal FIR.
5. Exhibit-2 Injury report of Munna Kumar (Raghvendra Kumar).
6. Exhibit-2/1 Signature of doctor on injury report (exhibit-2).
7. Exhibit-3 Injury report of Rakesh Kumar.
8. Exhibit-3/1 Signature of doctor on injury report (exhibit-3).
9. Exhibit-4 Injury report of Nibha Kumari.
10. Exhibit-4/1 Signature of doctor on injury report (exhibit-4).
11. Exhibit-5 & Supplementary injury report of 5/1 Raghvendra Kumar and signature of witness on it.
12. Exhibit-6 & 6/1 Supplementary injury report of Nibha Kumari and signature of witness on it.
13. Exhibit-7, 7/1 Supplementary injury report of and 7/2 Rakesh Kumar and signature of doctor on it.
14. Exhibit-8 & 8/1 Injury report of Amerika Devi and signature of doctor on it.
15. Exhibit-9 & 9/1 Injury report of Priti Kumari and signature of doctor on it.
16. Exhibit-10 and Injury report of Pramila Devi and 10/1 Signature of doctor on it.
17. Exhibit-11 and Injury report of Kanchan Mala 11/1 and signature of doctor on it.
18. Exhibit-12 and Formal FIR and signature of 12/1 S.H.O. Mahadeo Kamat.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1402 of 2021 dt.03-12-2024 7/65
19. Exhibit-13 and Arrest memo of Darshan Kumar 13/1 and signature of S.H.O. over it.
20. Exhibit-14 and Arrest memo of Ramjivan Mahto 14/1 and signature of S.H.O. over it.
21. Exhibit-15 and Arrest memo of Binod Kumar 15/1 and signature of S.H.O. on it.
22. Exhibit-16 and Forwarding report and signature 16/1 of witness on it.
23. Exhibit-17, 17/1 Charge-sheet and signature of and 17/2 witness and S.H.O. on it.
24. Exhibit-18 Injury report of Rajesh Kumar
25. Exhibit-18/1 Signature of doctor on injury report of Rajesh Kumar.
26. Exhibit-19, Medical report and signature of 19/1, 19/2, Dr. A.N. Shahi, Dr. Nagmani Rai 19/3 and 19/4 and Dr. Jaikant Paswan and injured Raghvendra Kumar.
27. Exhibit-20 Order passed by Hon'be High Court dated 15.05.2019.
28. Exhibit-20/1 Order passed by Hon'ble High Court dated 21.10.2019.
8. On the basis of evidences/circumstances as surfaced during the trial, the learned trial court has examined the appellants/accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., where they completely denied all the evidences surfaced during the trial and claimed their complete innocence.
9. The appellants/convict in order to prove their innocence, examined three defence witnesses, who are DW-1 Narayan Paswan, DW-2 Anandi Das and DW-3 Sukan Das.
10. Taking note of the evidences as surfaced during Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1402 of 2021 dt.03-12-2024 8/65 the trial and after considering the arguments as advanced by both the parties, the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellants/convicts/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 447/149, 341/149, 323/149, 324/149, 326-A/149, 326-B/149 of the IPC and sentenced them in the manner indicated above.
11. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellants/convict have preferred the present appeal.
12. Hence, the present appeal.
Argument on behalf of the appellants/convicts:
13. It is submitted by Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/convicts that the learned Trial Court while recording the judgment of conviction overlooked the vital contradictions and omissions of witnesses on the point of occurrence and on this ground alone, the impugned judgment is fit to be quashed/set aside. It is submitted that only inimical and partisan witnesses were examined in support of case of the prosecution and, as such, non-examination of Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1402 of 2021 dt.03-12-2024 9/65 independent witnesses despite of its availability makes a serious doubt regarding the occurrence. It is further submitted that injured were examined medically after lapse of substantial period of time, which creates a doubt in itself that the said injury caused due to present crime. It is pointed out that considering the delay part, the accidental injury out of unknown occurrence cannot be ignored, which was made instrumental to implicate the appellants falsely with present case being an afterthought.
13.1. It is further submitted by Mr. Thakur that "corrosive substance" is different with acid and, therefore, until and unless it is not proved by chemical examination that the substance used in attack was acid, the learned Trial Court cannot convict the appellants for the specific offence, which is available under Sections 326-A and 326-B of the IPC. It is submitted that the evidence available on record suggest that said liquid was battery water. In this context, it is submitted that injured was running a garage having lot of batteries under their use and possession, where he received injuries out of accident while carrying such batteries on head while Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1402 of 2021 dt.03-12-2024 10/65 working in garage. It is submitted that the injury report was given after about one year and such delay is sufficient to gather that appellants were falsely implicated, who are none but the agnates of the informant and having land dispute since long, for which, a title suit is also pending. It is also pointed out that the injury of injured are simple in nature and on this score also, the conviction under Section 326-A is bad in the eyes of law.
13.2. While concluding argument, Mr. Thakur submitted that the prosecution has suppressed its earlier version. It is also pointed out that no vessel or container, containing acid was seized from the place of occurrence. There is no any seizure of burnt clothes. Neither any material or soil or clothes were sent for Forensic Science Laboratory (for short 'FSL') for its examination, which may ascertain that substance, which was used to cause injury was acid.
13.3. Having all such facts as available on record makes the balance of appeal in favour of appellants and considering the same, this appeal deserves to be allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction. Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1402 of 2021 dt.03-12-2024 11/65 Argument on behalf of the State/Informant:-
14. It is submitted by Mr. A.M.P. Mehta, learned APP for the State duly assisted by Mr. Vinay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the informant while arguing qua crime in question that the injured persons and several eye-witnesses have supported the occurrence. It is submitted that there is no reason to disbelieve the version of injured who received acid injury during the occurrence and the plea of receiving injury out of unknown accident is only a manipulative argument without having any basis. It is submitted that the delay for medical examination is well- explained and it was only on the interference of Hon'ble High Court, the injured was examined medically when he lost his external pinna (external ear) completely due to acid attack. It was a brutal attack when the injured was caught hold by accused persons and the acid was poured on his head. Learned APP further submitted that injuries are in full corroboration with the manner of occurrence. The alleged land dispute may be one of the reasons for present occurrence but, same cannot mitigate the criminal responsibility of appellants arising out of present Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1402 of 2021 dt.03-12-2024 12/65 crime in question i.e. of acid attack.
14.1. Learned APP further submitted that every acid is corrosive in nature. It is pointed out that strength of acid i.e. degree of corrosiveness depends upon its "P H" value and, therefore, it is not necessary to establish substance as an acid through any particular chemical test, as submitted. In this context, learned APP further submitted that the doctor, who examined the injured persons categorically stated through medical examination report that injury was caused due to acid and it appears in full corroboration with the manner in which it was poured on the body of the injured. It is also pointed out that non-seizure of burnt clothes and non- recovery of vessel, container of acid may be due to faulty investigation, but it does not lead to conclusion ipso facto that occurrence was not of acid attack particularly, in view of medical examination report of the injured. The oral evidence of injured and medical examination report in itself appears conclusive in nature to establish the crime in question beyond any reasonable doubt qua appellants and, therefore, same cannot require to be interfered with at appellate stage. In Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1402 of 2021 dt.03-12-2024 13/65 support of his submission, learned APP referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court as available through Khema alias Khem Chandra and Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2023) 10 SCC 451].
15. I have perused the trial court records carefully and gone through the evidences available on record as also considered the rival submissions canvassed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
16. After hearing the arguments and upon perusal of records, it appears to this Court that the evidence as surfaced during the trial is required to be discussed for the purpose of its re-appreciation, which appears essential for the just and proper disposal of the present appeal.
17. PW-1 is Arvind Mahto. It was deposed by him that occurrence is of 18.11.2018, which was Sunday and it took place at about 9:30 A.M. At that time, he was in his courtyard and his daughter namely, Nibha Kumari was going to cattle house by crossing courtyard. In the meantime, accused Pappu Kumar and Pankaj Kumar came there and started to teasing her and also abused her. On her alarm, he Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1402 of 2021 dt.03-12-2024 14/65 along with Sobha Kant Mahto, Rajesh Kumar, Rakesh Kumar, Amerika Devi, Preeti Kumari, Swati Kumari and his mother went there. His mother, his son Raghvendra @ Munna and his wife Parmila Devi went there. It was deposed that the moment they arrived, Pankaj and Pappu fled away to their home and returned with Binod Ram, Pravesh Mahto, Darshan Mahto, Ramjiwan Mahto, Soni Devi, Premshila Devi, Rekha Devi @ Sariya Devi, Bandana Devi alongwith four unknown came to his cattle house. Out of them, Pankaj, Pappu, Binod and Darshan were equipped with lathi and rod, who upon arrival at place of occurrence started to assault physically and also attacked with acid. The acid attack was done by Darshan, Pappu, Pankaj and Binod. They poured acid on Raghvendra @ Munna, Rakesh, Amerika Devi and Nibha Kumari. It was deposed that head, neck, back side, hand, stomach, leg and left external pinna of Raghvendra was completely burnt during occurrence. Nibha Kumari received injury on her face and leg. Amerika Devi received injury on her hand and Rakesh also received injury on his face, neck, stomach etc. The acid also burnt their clothes. It was deposed that Preeti Kumari, Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1402 of 2021 dt.03-12-2024 15/65 Swati Kumari, his mother and wife becomes injured due to lathi assault. After the occurrence, accused persons including the appellants fled away to their home. The injured persons were brought to Hassanpur Government Hospital with help of co-villagers, where they were treated but, by taking note of serious medical condition of injured, Raghvendra, Nibha and Rakesh were referred to Samastipur Sadar Hospital, from where, injured Raghvendra Kumar was further referred to Patna Medical College and Hospital (for short 'PMCH') at Patna. It was deposed that injured Raghvendra is still under treatment at PMCH. He further deposed that the occurrence was witnessed by Shobha Kant Mahto, Ashok Kumar, Lakshmi Mahto, Krishna Kumar Bhardwaj, Mantun Mahto. They were also threatened by the accused persons after the occurrence.
17.1. Upon cross-examination, it was stated by him that his statement was recorded by police at about 1.00 P.M. They arrived at place of occurrence after five minutes of alarm raised by Nibha Kumari. He affirmed the land dispute with accused persons. It was also stated that still title suit is pending between them, bearing Title Suit No.126 of 2016, Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1402 of 2021 dt.03-12-2024 16/65 which is pending in the court of Sub Judge-I, Rosera. He also visited the hospital along with injured. It was stated that Rajesh Mahto is not running a scrap shop rather he was running a tent house. It was stated that at the time of occurrence, injured Raghvendra was wearing T-shirt and half paint. His T-shirt and paint were burnt during the occurrence. Injured Raghvendra is his son and injured Nibha Kumari is his daughter. Nibha was wearing frock and paijama. It was stated that paijama of Nibha was burnt upto knee. Her face was also burnt. Rakesh Kumar also received acid injuries. His face was burnt. His shirt was also burnt during the occurrence. He did not notice whether acid was dropped to ground or not. He saw acid injuries. He saw two injuries on the body of Nibha. Rakesh received injury on his face and neck. His whole face and neck was burnt. It was also stated that none of the victim received any compensation from acid attack despite of giving application.
18. PW-2 is Rakesh Kumar. He narrated the occurrence in the manner as stated by PW-1 by supporting that it took place on 18.11.2018, which was Sunday at about Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1402 of 2021 dt.03-12-2024 17/65 9:30 A.M. It was deposed by him that during the occurrence, Ramjiwan Mahto ordered to co-accused persons to kill them by throwing acid whereafter, Pappu, Pankaj, Darshan and Ram Binod Mahto poured acid on the head of injured Raghvendra resultantly, his body was burnt along with neck, head, stomach, arms and whole legs. It was stated that whole left ear of Raghvendra was corroded and his clothes was also burnt. It was deposed that Binod, Darshan, Pappu and Pankaj also poured acid on his head, which caused burn injury on his cheek and neck. His shirt was also burnt. Thereafter, they also poured acid on Amerika Devi resultantly, her hand was also burnt and finally, they poured acid on injured Nibha Kumari, who received injury on her legs. Her clothes were also burnt. After the occurrence, all injured including him were brought to Hassanpur hospital from where, he along with injured Nibha and Raghvendra were referred to Sadar Hospital, Samastipur from where Raghvendra was further referred to PMCH, which is still continued. He shown his shirt to court during trial, which found burnt in front side. It was stated that said shirt was not seized by police, whereas the Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1402 of 2021 dt.03-12-2024 18/65 clothes of other injured were seized by police. It was stated by him that he is running a garage in village and repairing old tractor. He runs said garage with his brother Raju Kumar since 2003. Old batteries being sold out as a whole and do nothing with its acid. He was not doing any business related with battery. He said to have aware about the fact that battery contains acid but, not aware about its quantity. He usually washed working clothes of garage after 2-3 days. He denied the suggestion that to make occurrence serious, the allegation of outraging modesty was super-added. He shown his burn injury on neck to the court during the trial.
19. PW-3 is Shobha Kant Mahto, who also supported the date, day and time of occurrence and deposed that on alarm of Nibha Kumari, daughter of Arbind Mahto (PW-1) along with him arrived at place of occurrence, where co-accused Pappu and Pankaj were already present, who fled to their house and called all family members equipped with lathi danda and acid. He named some of the co-accused persons accompanied Pappu, Pankaj, Darshan, Binod Mahto, Rekha Devi, Ramjiwan Mahto along with 14-15 persons. He Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1402 of 2021 dt.03-12-2024 19/65 categorically stated that out of them, Pankaj, Darshan, Pappu and Binod were equipped with acid in their hand. It was deposed that initially assault was made by lathi but, upon the order of co-accused Ramjiwan Mahto as to kill them by pouring acid, co-accused Pankaj, Pappu, Darshan, and Binod poured acid on Raghvendra, resultantly, his whole body starting from head to leg was burnt. The clothes was also burnt during the occurrence and when to save injured Raghvendra (PW-8), Rakesh (PW2) went there, they also poured acid on him, resultantly, his stomach and cheek was burnt. Injured Nibha Kumari (PW-7) received injury on her leg. Others also received acid injuries, who went to save them. All injured were brought to Hasanpur Government Hospital from where, Reghvendra, Rakesh and Nibha were referred to Sadar Hospital, Samastipur, from where observing the serious condition of Raghvendra, he was referred to PMCH, Patna.
19.1. In cross-examination, he also affirmed the manner of injuries as he was stated in his examination-in- chief. It was stated that Nibha Kumari (PW-7) is his cousin Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1402 of 2021 dt.03-12-2024 20/65 sister. It was stated that Raghvendra was also assaulted on his head by Ramjiwan Mahto by lathi but, he did not received any injury out of said assault and soon thereafter, the acid attack was done. He could not made any attempt to save the victim as his hand was fractured due to road accident. He returned to home from Samastipur after sending Raghvendra to PMCH.
20. PW-4 is Preeti Kumari. She also supported the date, day and time of occurrence and also the manner of assault as well as acid attack specifically caused by co- accused Pankaj, Pappu, Binod and Darshan. She also stated that Ramjiwan Mahto poured acid resultantly, ear of Raghvendra corroded and he also received acid burn injury throughout on his body upto leg. She also deposed in same manner regarding hospitalization and treatment of injured persons, as deposed by earlier prosecution witnesses.
20.1. Upon cross-examination, she deposed that when she arrived at the place of occurrence, she found Raghvendra Kumar, Nibha Kumari, Rakesh Mahto, Amerika Kumari in burnt condition. She did not made any statement Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1402 of 2021 dt.03-12-2024 21/65 before police. The occurrence of outraging the modesty was first time. They were not on talking terms with family of accused persons. She denied land dispute between the parties. From her deposition, it can be gathered safely that she is not the actual eye-witness of the occurrence of acid attack, as the injured already received injuries before her arrival at the place of occurrence. She also appears to depose regarding occurrence first time during the trial, as she has not made statement before police during investigation.
21. PW-5 is Rajesh Kumar, who is informant of this case and deposed that occurrence was of 18.11.2018 on Sunday at about 9:30 A.M. It appears from his deposition that initially co-accused Pappu and Pankaj outraged the modesty of her niece Nibha Kumari, which was objected by him and, thereafter, on alarm of Nibha Kumari (PW-7), other family members arrived whereafter, Pappu and Pankaj also joined by other co-accused persons which in total become eleven persons. It was deposed that Binod, Pappu, Pankaj and Darshan were equipped with acid bottle and other co-accused persons were equipped with lathi. It was stated that upon Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1402 of 2021 dt.03-12-2024 22/65 order of co-accused Ram Jiwan Mahto to kill injured persons by pouring acid, co-accused namely, Binod Maho, Pankaj, Pappu and Darshan Kumar poured acid on Raghvendra and also on Rakesh Kumar, resultantly, they received severe burn injury upon their face, back, stomach, ear etc. Subsequently, Nibha Kumari was also attacked by acid due to which, her face got disfigured. Amerika Devi also received injury on her hand and, thereafter, accused persons fled away with empty bottles. It was deposed that initially all injured persons were referred to Hassanpur Primary Health Center from where, Raghvendra Kumar, Rakesh Kumar and Nibha Kumari were referred to Sadar Hospital, Samastipur. Considering serious condition, Raghvendra Kumar was further referred to PMCH, Patna. A written information regarding occurrence was given by him to Hassanpur Police Station, which was written by his nephew Mintu Kumar and after reading the contents and finding its correct, he put his signature there. He identified his hand-writing and signature on written information dated 18.11.2018, which upon his identification was exhibited as Exhibit No.1 and Exhibit No.1/1 respectively. Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1402 of 2021 dt.03-12-2024 23/65 21.1. Upon cross-examination, it was stated by him that the occurrence took place due to outraging of modesty of injured Nibha Kumari. It was stated that as Arvind Kumar was not available and he was in Samastipur for treatment, he became the informant of the occurrence. He stated to run a tent house business in village in the name and style of M/s. Deluxe Tent House. He denied the land dispute with accused persons and shows his ignorance whether any land dispute is pending or not. It was stated that the complain of outraging the modesty was made by Nibha Kumari herself. He did not receive any acid injury during the occurrence but, he was assaulted by lathi, he was not treated medically. It was stated by him that the colour of acid was red. Amerika Devi received acid injury on her right hand. Kanchan Mala did not receive any acid injury. It was co-accused Ram Jiwan Mahto, who ordered to pour acid. The acid was also not found upon Preeti Kumari. It was stated that Rakesh Kumar (PW-2) is running a garage. He shown place of occurrence to the police. It was stated by him that some drops of acid were also found fallen on ground. It was categorically stated by him that the cause Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1402 of 2021 dt.03-12-2024 24/65 of present occurrence was outraging the modesty of Nibha Kumari. It was stated that he made statement to police that Raghvendra received injury on his back and ear. Nibha Kumari also received injury on her face out of said acid attack. Amerika Devi received injury on her hand. He denied the suggestion that as he was not at place of occurrence, therefore, he did not receive any acid injury. He also denied the suggestion that modesty of Nibha Kumari was not outraged by accused persons. He denied the suggestion that PW-3 after taking of acid from his scrap shop, made an attempt to throw it upon accused/appellant but, he himself received injury due to accident. He denied the suggestion that due to pending Title Suit No.126 of 2016, present false criminal case was lodged.
22. PW-6 is Parmila Devi. She also supported the occurrence and deposed that it took place before ten months on Sunday at 9:30 A.M. She also witnessed the acid bottles in hand of Pappu Kumar, Pankaj Kumar, Binod Mahto and Darshan Kumar. She deposed that on order of Ram Jiwan Mahto, acid was thrown. It was stated that co-accused Pappu, Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1402 of 2021 dt.03-12-2024 25/65 Pankaj, Binod and Darshan poured acid on Raghvendra Kumar, resultantly, his head, ear, back, neck and chest were burnt. Rakesh Kumar (PW-2) was also attacked by acid and, thereafter, all these four persons thrown acid upon Nibha Kumari. She also supported the manner of occurrence and hospitalization of injured persons as it was deposed by earlier prosecution witnesses and same not requires to be repeated for the sake of brevity.
22.1. Upon cross-examination, it was deposed by her that Nibha Kumari is her daughter. It was also stated that she is a witness of outraging the modesty of her daughter by accused persons. She denied that Manoj and Pappu are her relative. It was stated that Nibha never complaint earlier regarding Pappu and Pankaj. She denied any previous enmity with accused persons. She categorically stated that the acid was not thrown rather it was poured. It was stated that when she arrived at the place of occurrence, the accused persons were outraging the modesty of Nibha Kumari. She made her statement regarding outraging the modesty of her daughter also to the police. It was stated that when she saw acid in Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1402 of 2021 dt.03-12-2024 26/65 hand of co-accused persons, they started to ran away from the place of occurrence but, in that course only, the injured were assaulted by lathi and also acid was poured upon. She did not saw the colour of acid. She also received injury during occurrence. It was stated that outraging the modesty of Nibha Kumari was the root cause of the occurrence.
22.2. Upon cross-examination on behalf of appellant Darshan Kumar, it was stated by her that it was winter when the present occurrence took place. Her daughter Nibha Kumari was outraged by accused persons. Upon her alarm, when she went there, she found accused persons outraging the modesty of her daughter. They caught the hair of her daughter and also abusing her. Co-accused Pappu and Pankaj were present at the place of occurrence at the time of outraging the modesty of her daughter. She denied that she has any land dispute with Ram Jiwan Mahto and with any accused persons. She shown her ignorance regarding pendency of Title Suit No. 216 of 2016 before learned Sub Judge-III, Rosera. She denied that Nibha Kumari is relative of co-accused Pappu and Pankaj. She denied any relation with Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1402 of 2021 dt.03-12-2024 27/65 co-accused Ram Jiwan Mahto. She denied the suggestion that Raghvendra himself made attempt of throwing acid, where Ram Jiwan Mahto, Binod Mahto, Pappu, Darshan and Pankaj were tried to save themselves and in that course only, it falls on the injured Raghvendra. She denied that she lodged present false case by making her daughter instrumental.
23. PW-7 is Nibha Kumari. She is also one of the injured, who received acid injury during the occurrence and the occurrence took shape of present acid attack, which initiated from her outraging the modesty only as per prosecution version. It was deposed by her that occurrence took place on 18.11.2018, on Sunday at about 9:30 A.M. when Pappu and Pankaj collectively started to outrage her modesty and when she raised an alarm, the nearby people rushed to place of occurrence, whereafter, they left and subsequently, again came back with family members having lathi, pistol and acid bottles in their hand. She categorically stated that Binod Mahto, Pappu Kumar, Darshan Kumar and Pankaj Kumar were equipped with acid bottles. Ram Jiwan Mahto was equipped with lathi. After arriving at place of Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1402 of 2021 dt.03-12-2024 28/65 occurrence firstly, they started to abuse and subsequently, they started to assault with lathi, where in course of occurrence, Ram Jiwan Mahto ordered to kill by throwing acid whereafter, all four accused persons, namely, Binod Mahto, Darshan Kumar, Pankaj Kumar and Pappu Kumar hold Raghvendra Kumar (PW-8) and poured acid on his head as a result of which, his head, ear, neck from both sides back, chest, right hand were burnt completely. It was deposed that to save Raghvendra, she along with Rakesh Kumar (PW-2), Parmila Devi (PW-6), Shobha Kant Mahto (PW-3) went upto place of occurrence but, acid was thrown upon them. Her clothes were burnt due to acid attack and she received injury on her face and leg. She shown burnt leg to court having burn scar marks. It was deposed by her that Rakesh received injury on his neck, face etc. It was further deposed that Amerika Devi also received injury of acid on her right hand and, thereafter, all injured were brought to Government Sub- divisional Hospital, Hassanpur from where, she along with Raghvendra Kumar and Rakesh Kumar referred to Sadar Hospital, Samastipur from where injured Raghvendra Kumar Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1402 of 2021 dt.03-12-2024 29/65 further referred to PMCH, Patna.
23.1. Upon cross-examination, it was stated by her that she made statement before the police after three days of the occurrence. It was stated that within a minute, on her alarm, the persons were gathered over there. It was stated that she shouted for help during the occurrence. It was stated that the occurrence of outraging the modesty and acid attack took place at same place. It was stated by her that she shouted only when co-accused Pappu and Pankaj touched her body. It was stated by her that at the time of outraging the modesty, Pappu and Pankaj were equipped with knife and pistol not by acid. It was stated by her that she handed over her paijama and frock to police. Raghvendra was wearing T- shirt and half paint during the occurrence. Raghvendra was caught hold by Binod Mahto. It was stated that still one scar is available on her face, which is above nose. No firing was made by Ram Jiwan Mahto. She never made statement before the police regarding any enmities with family of accused persons. Certain questions were asked to her in question and answer form, which are as under:-
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1402 of 2021 dt.03-12-2024 30/65 Q. No. 27. Whether you made statement before police that your clothes, leg, face and both legs were burnt?
Ans. Yes. She said it.
Q. No. 28. Whether you shown burnt leg to police?
Ans. Yes. I shown it.
Q. No. 29. Whether Rakesh (PW-2) received burn injury on his cheek, neck and also his shirt was burnt?
Ans. Yes and same was also said by her to police.
Q. No.30. Whether chest of Rakesh could not burn?
Ans. Yes and this fact was also said by her to police.
Q. No.31. Whether right hand of Amerika burnt due to acid?
Ans. Yes. This fact was also said by her to police.
Q. No.32. There was land dispute between their families much prior to this occurrence?
Ans. It was replied as not in her knowledge.
She denied suggestion that she has no knowledge whether her father Arvind Mahto and one Praveen Mahto filed a civil suit against Ram Jiwan Mahto and Binod Mahto etc. which is numbered as Title Appeal No.126 of 2016. She denied to have knowledge that his uncle Rakesh Kumar (PW-
2), who is doing the business of scraps and having motor Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1402 of 2021 dt.03-12-2024 31/65 garage usually kept acid for denting and painting work of vehicle. It was stated that acid was in 5-6 vessels.
24. PW-8 is Raghvendra Kumar. He also supported the date, day and time of occurrence as 18.11.2018 being Sunday, when occurrence took place at about 9:30 A.M. It was stated that when Nibha Kumari (PW-
7) was going to cattle house, co-accused Pappu and Pankaj outraged her modesty, upon which, her sister shouted for help, he went there on alarm. He was followed by his father, uncle Rakesh Kumar, Amerika Devi, Shobha Kant Mahto, Preeti Kumari, Swati Kumari, Parmila Devi and Kanchanmala etc. They collectively opposed it, whereafter, Pappu and Pankaj firstly went to their house and immediately returned along with all family members, total of eleven persons, including Binod Mahto, Pappu Kumar, Darshan Kumar and Pankaj Kumar, who were equipped with acid vessels. Binod was also equipped with pistols. Ram Jiwan Mahto, Soni Kumari, Bandana Kumari, Premshila Kumari, Rampravesh Mahto, Rekha Kumari and Darshaniya Devi were equipped with lathi. After arriving at place of occurrence, initially, they Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1402 of 2021 dt.03-12-2024 32/65 abused and, thereafter, started to assault with lathi. During the course of occurrence itself, Ram Jiwan Mahto ordered to kill all of us by pouring acid, whereafter, Binod Mahto caught hold by his neck and pushed him down whereafter Pappu Kumar, Pankaj Kumar and Darshan Kumar poured acid on him due to which, his head, neck received burn injuries and he lost his left ear completely. He also received injury in his eye, cheek, chest, stomach and both hands. The right hand was completely burnt and was not working. He is unable to move it. All such injuries are still available on his body, some of which are still covered with bandage. To save him, Rakesh, Nibha, Amerika Devi came there but, they also thrown acid on them resultantly, these three persons also becomes injured, who were Rakesh Kumar (PW-2) received injuries on his cheek, neck. Nibha Kumari received injures on her face and leg and Amerika Devi received injuries on her hand. After the occurrence, accused persons fled away with empty acid bottles from place of occurrence. All injured persons including him were brought first to Primary Health Center, Hasanpur from where he, Nibha (PW-7) and Rakesh Kumar (PW-2) Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1402 of 2021 dt.03-12-2024 33/65 were referred to Sadar Hospital, Samastipur from where he was further referred to PMCH by considering his serious condition, where still he is under treatment. He found difficulty in talking. His neck was also not working due to injury as he was unable to raise it properly.
24.1. Upon cross-examination, it was stated by him that before this occurrence, he was a student and was preparing for competitive examination in Rajasthan. He was not in inimical terms with any of the accused persons. He was a student and was not connected in any manner with accused persons. It was said that he also lost his hearing sense. It was observed by court that this witness completely lost his ear and also injury was present on his head, eyebrow, neck etc. Injury was also available on his fingers. He shown all his body parts to police, where he received said injury. He also handed over the clothes to police. It was said that Rakesh Kumar (PW-2) is his uncle. It was stated that Rakesh is doing business of sale and purchase of old cars. He denied the suggestion that due to potato cultivation in disputed land, present occurrence took place. He categorically stated in his cross-examination also Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1402 of 2021 dt.03-12-2024 34/65 that he was bent down by neck by accused Binod Mahto, Darshan Kumar, Pappu Kumar and Pankaj Kumar. The acid was poured on his head. The size of bottle was of one bitta.
25. PW-9 is Dr. Arvind Kumar, who was posted as Medical Officer at Primary Health Center, Hasanpur on 18.11.2018. On that day, at about 11.15 A.M., he treated the injured Raghvendra Kumar, who was brought by the villagers of village-Chandrapur. He reached there in injured condition and he treated the injured. It was stated that injury report of injured Raghvendra is before him, which was in his handwriting and prepared by him. He has identified his signature and signature over the injury report, which was prepared by him, which upon his identification was exhibited as Exhibit No. 2'A'. He has identified the signature of witness on injury report, which upon his identification was exhibited as Exhibit No.2/1. He has found the following injury on his person:-
" (1) Lacerated wound on occipital part of skull 1/4"
(2) Abrasion on occipital part of scalp-1" x 1/4"
on posterior part of scalp (3) burn scattered on middle of chest- to lower Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1402 of 2021 dt.03-12-2024 35/65 part of abdomen (4) Burn scar on posterior part of right shoulder- 1.5" x 0.5" x 0.5"
(5) Burn scar mark on right lower-1/rd of right forearm (6) Burn scar mark of left of neck-1/2" x 1/4" x 1/4"
(7) Burn scattered on right side of neck- 1/2"x 1/4" x 1/4".
It was stated by him that patient was referred to Sadar Hospital, Samastipur, burn unit for treatment and final opinion. He opined the age of injury of within six hours. He further stated that he found black Til on front of shoulder right side of chest region. He opined that the nature of Injury nos-2,3,4,5,6,7 caused by corrosive substances such as, acid, rest all are by hard and blunt substances. While Injury nos.-2,3,4,5,6,7 are simple in nature. He reserved his opinion on injury no.-1.
He further stated that on same day, at 11:30 AM, he examined injured Rakesh Kumar (PW-2). It was stated by him that he has prepared injury report of Rakesh Kumar on 24-11-2018 in his handwriting and also signed on it. He identified his signature on aforesaid injury report of Rakesh Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1402 of 2021 dt.03-12-2024 36/65 Kumar, which upon his identification was exhibited as Exhibit No.3 and signature of witness over the injury report was exhibited as Exhibit No.3/1. He found the following injuries on injured Rakesh Kumar:-
"(1) Injury No.1 scattered burn mark on lateral aspect of right side of neck-1.5" x 0.5" x 0.5"
(2) Injury No.2 Burn scar mark on left side of face- 0.5" x 0.25" x 0.25"
(3) Injury No.03 Burn scar mark on right side of face - 0.5" x 1/4" x 1/4".
(4) Injury No.4 scattered burn posterior aspect of dorsal aspect of left hand-0.5" x 1" x 1/4"
(5) Injury No.5 Burn scar mark on posterior aspect of right arm - 0.5" x 1/4" x 1/4"."
He further stated that patient was referred to Sadar Hospital, Samastipur for treatment and final opinion. It was stated by him that age of Injury is within six hours. He found a black til on right side of neck. He opined that the nature of injury nos.1,2,3,4 and 5 are called corrosive substances. He kept his opinion reserved regarding injury no.1. Injury nos. 2,3,4 and 5 are simple in nature.
He further stated that on same day, at 11.15 AM, he examined injured Nibha Kumari and prepared the injury Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1402 of 2021 dt.03-12-2024 37/65 report on 24.11.2018. He identified the injury report of Nihba Kumari, which upon his identification, was marked as Exhibit No.4. He also identified his handwriting and signature over the injury report, which upon his identification was exhibited as Exhibit-4/1. He found the following injuries which are as under:-
"(1) Injury no.01- scattered burn scar mark on middle 1/3 of left leg- 0.5" x 1" x 1/4".
(2) Injury no.02 scattered burn scar mark on lower 1/3 of left leg-0.5" x 1/4" x 1/4".
(3) Injury no.03 - Burn scar mark on posterior aspect of right elbow- 1/4" x 1/4" x 1/4".
It was stated by him that age of injury is within six hours. He found a wound scar mark on lateral aspect of right elbow. He opined that the nature of Injury Nos-1,2,3 are caused due to corrosive substances such as acid. He found all injuries are simple in nature.
It was stated by him that he has received supplementary injury report dated 05.01.2019 of Raghvendra Kumar @ Munna Kumar, who was treated by him on 18.11.2018 and was referred to Sadar Hospital, Samastipur.
It was stated by him that he found in Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1402 of 2021 dt.03-12-2024 38/65 supplementary injury report, total burn surface area -22%, which shows the nature of injury simple in nature, attached copy of report given by PMCH, Patna. Supplementary injury report dt.- 05.01.2019 was prepared by him and he identified it. On identification of this witness, supplementary Injury report of Raghavendra Kumar dt.- 05.01.2019 was marked as Exhibit No.-5 and his signature on it upon his identification was marked as Exhibit-5/1.
It was further stated by him that he has received supplementary injury report dated 05.01.2019 of Nibha Kumari aged 17 years D/o Arvind Mahto At-Chandrapur P.S.- Hasanpur, Distt.-Samastipur on 18.11.2018 at 11:15 AM, who was examined and referred to Sadar Hospital, Samastipur by him. Supplementary Injury report of aforesaid Nibha Kumari dt.- 05.01.2019 shows old injury report dt.- 24.11.2018. Supplementary injury report of Nibha Kumari dt.-05.01.2019 was prepared in his handwriting, bearing his signature. On identification of this witness, supplementary injury report of Nibha Kumari dt.-05.01.2019 was exhibited as Exhibit No-6 and his signature on it was exhibited as Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1402 of 2021 dt.03-12-2024 39/65 Exhibit No.6/1.
He further deposed that injured Rakesh Kumar in continuation of injury report dated 18.11.2018, qua injury No.1 was referred to Sadar Hospital, Samastipur for treatment and final opinion. The patient was treated in OPD of Sadar Hospital, Samastipur. He further deposed that patient had not shown any injury report from Sadar hospital, Samastipur. No injury report can be provided if any supplementary report come later on.
He further stated that he has received opinion from Sadar hospital, Samastipur on 02.02.2019. According to report given by Dr. P. D. Sharma shows nature of injury as "simple".
He further stated that all the reports were prepared by him, on which the signature of Medical Officers are also present.
25.1. Upon cross-examination, he deposed that injured are not present in court and he has not taken signature of injured. He further deposed that he was unaware about the nature of acid. It was stated by him that corrosive Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1402 of 2021 dt.03-12-2024 40/65 substance if poured on head, then no hair should be left. He further stated that if someone worn clothes then after pouring acid, clothes also burnt. He further deposed that when he treated the injured Raghvendra Kumar, at the time, he was in full paint and vest (ganji). He has further deposed that he has turned the clothes for watching the injury. He further stated that if corrosive substance is poured on body, then it made skin shrink. He has further deposed that he has not mentioned about the colour of the injury in injury report. He further stated that at the time of treatment, injured Raghvendra was in conscious condition. He further stated that he has given the age of injury on the basis of statement given by injured persons. It was deposed by him that he has received supplementary injury report of PMCH, Patna, which was annexed with injury report, which is not before him. He deposed that injuries are simple in nature.
26. PW-10 is Dr. Vimal Rai, who was posted as Medical Officer at Primary Health Centre on 19.11.2018. He deposed that Dr. Arbind Kumar was also posted along with him. He further stated that supplementary injury report dated Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1402 of 2021 dt.03-12-2024 41/65 03.01.2019 was in his handwriting and with signature of Dr. Arbind Kumar, which was before him, upon his identification, it was exhibited as Exhibit No.7 and signature of Dr. Arbind Kumar, upon his identification was exhibited as Exhibit No.7/1. He has further stated that he has examined Amerika Devi on 19.11.2018 at Primary Health Center, Hasanpur who came for treatment and upon examination of injured, found the following injuries:-
"1. Injury no-1 swelling with right forearm with blacking of skin.
2. Mark of Identification-one mole left side face.
3. Age of injury- within six hours and it may be possible back and next (with objection from defence).
4. Time of examination - 04:00 PM
5. Nature of injury is simple caused by hard and blunt substance-suspicion of some corrosive substance contact.
He has stated that injury report of injured Amerika Devi was before him, which was in his handwriting and signature, upon his identification, the same was exhibited as Exhibit No.8 and signature over it was exhibited as Exhibit No.8/1.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1402 of 2021 dt.03-12-2024 42/65 He further stated that he has examined injured Priti Kumari on 18.11.2018 at Primary Health Centre, Hasanpur and found the following injuries:-
"1. Injury no-1 Bruise-1 and ½" x 3/4" over posterior part of right arm.
2. Injury no-2 Bruise-1 and ½" x 3/4" over posterior part of right arm about 3 inch apart from the injury no-1.
3. Injury no.3 -Tenderness back
4. Mark of Identification - one mole on left side face.
5. Age of injury is within 36 hours.
6. Time of examination - 04:15 PM
7. Nature of injury - Injury no-1,2 and 3 are simple caused by hard and blunt substance".
He has stated that injury report dated 23.11.2018 of injured Preeti Kumari is before him. He has identified his signature and handwriting on injury report and upon his identification, it was exhibited as Exhibit No.-9 and his signature over it was identified as Exhibit No.9/1.
On the same day, he was also examined injured Pramila Devi, who came to Primary Health Centre for treatment on 19.11.2018 and found the following injuries:-
"1. Injury no-1 - Tenderness neck.
2. Mark of identification - cut mark over right Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1402 of 2021 dt.03-12-2024 43/65 eyebrow.
3. Age of injury - within six hours.
4. Time of examination - 4:20 PM
5. Nature of injury is simple caused by hard and blunt substance".
On the same day, he examined the injured Kanchan Mala Devi, who came to Primary Health Centre and found the following injuries:-
"1. Injury no-1 - Tenderness back.
2. Mark of identification - one mole below right eye.
3. Age of injury - within six hours.
4. Time of examination - 4:18 PM
5. Nature of injury is simple caused by hard and blunt substances".
He has stated that injury report dated 23.11.2018 of injured Preeti Kumari was before him. He has identified his signature and handwriting on injury report and upon his identification, it was exhibited as Exhibit No.-11 and Exhibit No.11/1.
26.1. During cross-examination, he has accepted that injured are not before him. It was deposed by him that the injury of injured Preeti Kumari was in pink colour, whereas injury of injured Amerika Devi was blackish. It was stated by Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1402 of 2021 dt.03-12-2024 44/65 him that he guess about the injury on the basis of colour of injury. It was stated by him that corrosive substance may be both acid and water of battery. It was stated by him in cross- examination that expected time of injury may be more than 6 hours or less. It was further stated by him that injury may be caused due to fall on hard and blunt substance. He further stated that he was working with Dr. Arbind Kumar.
27. PW-11 is Tunanand Singh, who is Investigating Officer of this case and was posted as S.I. Hasanpur Police Station. On 18.11.2018, he received charge of investigation of present case after lodging of Hassanpur P.S. Case No.244 of 2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 326-A, 326-B, 307, 314, 504 and 506 of the IPC. Upon his identification, the formal FIR was exhibited as Exhibit Nos. 1/2 and 1/3. He visited the place of occurrence. He did not seized anything relevant at the place of occurrence. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of available witnesses, as Arbind Mahto, Parmila Devi, who supported the occurrence, where Parmila Devi also stated that she received injuries during the occurrence. Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1402 of 2021 dt.03-12-2024 45/65 Thereafter, he raided at different places with armed forces for arresting the accused persons. He arrested accused/appellant Darshan Kumar and Ram Jiwan Mahto. He also arrested accused Binod Mahto. He also recorded the statement of witness Nibha Kumari, daughter of Arbind Mahto, witness Rakesh Kumar (PW-2), Amerika Devi, wife of Shobha Kant Mahto, Preeti Kumari daughter of Arbind Mahto, who supported the occurrence, being an eye-witness of the occurrence. He received the injury report of Raghvendra Kumar @ Munna Kumar, Nibha Kumari, Rakesh Kumar, Kanchanmala, Preeti Kumari, Parmila Devi and Amerika Devi and after completion of investigation, he submitted charge- sheet for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 324, 326-A, 326-B, 341, 354, 504 and 506 of the IPC against accused Binod Mahto, Darshan Kumar and Ram Jiwan Mahto through charge-sheet No.205/2018 dated 30.12.2018, which upon his identification, was exhibited as Exhibit No.17. The signature of police officer was also identified by him, which upon his identification, was exhibited as Exhibit No.17/1 and endorsement of the then S.H.O. Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1402 of 2021 dt.03-12-2024 46/65 also identified, which upon his identification was exhibited as Exhibit No.17/2.
27.1. Upon cross-examination, it was stated by him that the FIR was lodged at about 11.15 P.M. but, he received information in police station regarding occurrence at about 9.30 A.M. He categorically stated that after visiting the place of occurrence, he met with injured persons but, he did not mention it in case diary. He recorded the statement of three injured persons on 21.11.2018 i.e. after three days of occurrence. It was stated that he was not informed during investigation, whether the bottles and clothes were sent for forensic examination. He did not investigate that there was any pending land dispute between the parties. He did not find any smell at place of occurrence when he visited. He did not made any attempt to record the statement of injured Raghvendra Kumar within one months and twelve days. It was stated that he submitted charge-sheet without taking statement of injured Raghvendra Kumar because he was under treatment in Patna. He did not have sufficient time to visit Patna for recording his statement. It was stated by him Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1402 of 2021 dt.03-12-2024 47/65 that in written information, there is nothing, which may suggest that Ram Jivan Mahto was equipped with any weapons or lathi. He was also not alleged to be thrown acid. He did not investigated regarding source of acid. He did not collected any soil, grass, clothes, container/vessels from the place of occurrence and did not make any seizure list. He denied the suggestion of defence counsel that in fact he made an attempt for acid attack but, he received himself injury from acid during scuffling with accused persons, who were trying for their self-defence. He received total of seven injury report between 23.11.2018 to 24.11.2018. It was stated that he mention in para-9 and 13 of the case diary that he raided the house of accused persons but, did not find any evidence as to store the acid bottle.
28. PW-12 is Prabhu Dayal Sharma, who was posted as Medical Officer at Sadar Hospital, Samastipur on 01.02.2019. On the same day, an opinion regarding injury of Rakesh Kumar, aged about 32 years, son of Mahendra Mahto, resident of Chandrapura, P.S.-Hassanpur, District-Samastipur was given by him. His face and right hand was found burnt Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1402 of 2021 dt.03-12-2024 48/65 and it was of simple nature. He identified said injury report, which was in his hand-writing and bearing signature, which upon his identification exhibited as Exhibit No.18. His handwriting was also exhibited as Exhibit No.-18/1. Series of questions were asked to this witness by learned counsel appearing for accused, which was recorded by learned trial court in question and answer form, where by replying question No.1, it was said by him that injury of Rakesh Kumar was medically tested by him when he came to him under reference from PHC (Primary Health Center), Hassanpur. The second question, which was asked to him was whether he found the injury of injured as simple in nature and no corrosive substance was found there as it was not opined through said injury report? In reply, it was stated by him that it is true. The third question, which was asked to him that whether any injury of grievous in nature was found on Rakesh Kumar and no such report was made available through Primary Health Centre, Hassanpur and further all injuries mentioned over there was of simple in nature, where he replied that same is true. The fourth question which was Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1402 of 2021 dt.03-12-2024 49/65 asked to him regarding injury report of Raghvendra Kumar @ Munna, where it was asked that all his injuries were also simple in nature for which a report dated 05.01.2019 was produced? In answer, it was replied that he never opined about the injury of Raghvendra. It appears from question No.5 that only injured Rakesh Kumar was referred to him. He denied that he investigated the injury of Raghvendra Kumar. He did not notice any injury upon Rakesh Kumar except as it was mentioned in his injury report, which was of burn in nature. It was stated by him that all injuries, which were found on Rakesh Kumar was out of burn. It was stated by him that PHC, Hassanpur has mentioned about the scar mark, which one is regarding old wound.
29. PW-13 is Dr. Hemant Kumar Singh, who stated in his examination-in-chief that on 13.07.2019 he was posted as Medical Officer, Sadar Hospital, Samastipur. On that day, a Medical Board was constituted in view of letter dated 08.07.2019 issued by the Civil Surgeon, Samastipur and letter No. 842 dated 04.07.2019 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Samastipur under the leadership of Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1402 of 2021 dt.03-12-2024 50/65 Dr. A.N. Shahi comprising of Dr. Jaikant Paswan and Dr. Nagmani Raj and himself. The Medical Board found the following injuries on the person of injured Raghvendra Kumar:-
" (1) Healed wound with hypertrophic scar over right forearm and right upper arm size-15"X4".
(2) Healed wound with hypertrophic scar over right shoulder 5" X 3"
(3) Healed wound with hypertrophic scar extending from front of neck to the suprapubic region size-22"x4" with contraction of the neck muscles. He is unable to moved his head completely.
(4) Healed wound with hypertrophic scar over left occipito parietal region size-6" x 4" with complete loss of left ear pinna.
(5) There is contraction of left angle of mouth with disfigurement of face.
(6) Healed wound with hypertrophic scar extending from back of the neck to right scapular region size 15" X 5"
(7) Healed wound of left side of forehead 4" X 3". (8) Healed wound right calf 4" X 2"."
He stated that the injury was grievous in nature. He further stated that the report of the Medical Board was in his pen and signature which also bears the signature of Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1402 of 2021 dt.03-12-2024 51/65 Chairman, Dr. A.N. Shahi and the members, namely, Dr. Jaikant Paswan and Dr. Nagmani Raj, which upon his identification was exhibited as Exhibit-19.
29.1. During cross-examination, it was stated by him that he has identified the injured in court, to whom he has examined. He further stated that he has not received any letter from Police Station or Primary Health Centre. It was stated by him that wound was healed. He has stated that injury nos.2 and 6 are different and injury no. 3, 4 and 5 are grievous in nature and he has clearly stated that he has not mentioned the nature of injury to be grievous in the injury report. It is stated by him that he has left to mention the word 'move' due to clerical mistake between the word "unable to - his head" in injury report. He further stated that he has seen the injured at the time of examination report and also in the court. It was stated by him that meaning of the word 'scar' is mark of old wound. He further stated that Dr. H.K. Singh and Dr. Jaikant Paswan are General Surgeon.
30. PW-14 is Dr. A.N. Shahi, who has stated in his examination-in-chief that on 13.07.2019 he was posted Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1402 of 2021 dt.03-12-2024 52/65 as Medical Superintendent at Sadar Hospital, Samastipur. On that day, a Medical Board was constituted in view of letter dated 08.07.2019 issued by the Civil Surgeon, Samastipur and letter No. 842 dated 04.07.2019 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Samastipur under his Chairmanship comprising of Dr. Hemant Kumar, Dr. Jaikant Paswan and Dr. Nagmani Raj, as members. The Medical Board found the following injuries on the person of injured Raghvendra Kumar:-
"1. The alleged acid injury was of 18.11.2018.
(1) Healed wound with hypertrophic scar over right forearm and right upper arm size-15"x4".
(2) Healed wound with hypertrophic scar over right shoulder 5"x3"
(3) Healed wound with hypertrophic scar extending from front of neck to the suprapubic region size-22"x4" with contraction of the neck muscles. He is unable to move his head completely.
(4) Healed wound with hypertrophic scar over left occipito parietal region size-6"x4" with complete loss of left ear pinna.
(5) There is contraction of left angle of mouth with disfigurement of face.
(6) Healed wound with hypertrophic scar Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1402 of 2021 dt.03-12-2024 53/65 extending from back of the neck to right scapular region size 15"x5"
(7) Healed wound of left side of forehead 4"x3". (8) Healed wound right calf 4"x2"."
He stated that the injury is grievous in nature. He further stated that the report of the Medical Board was in the pen and signature of Dr. Hemant Kumar Singh as also under the signature of Dr. Jaikant Paswan and Dr. Nagmani Raj and himself, which upon his identification has already exhibited as Exhibit-19. He has stated to indentifying his signature and upon his identification, it was exhibited as Exhibit-19/1 and also identified the signature of Dr. Nagmani Raj and Dr. Jaikant Paswan, which upon his identification, was exhibited as Exhibit-19/2 and Exhibit-19/3 respectively. It was stated by him that he has identified the injured, to whom they have examined, who were present in the Court. He has further stated that he had taken the signature of injured Raghvendra Kumar on the injury report (Exhibit-19), which upon his identification was exhibited as Exhibit-19/4.
30.1. During cross-examination, it was stated by him that there is no proof regarding the examination of injured Raghvendra Kumar, who was examined by him on that day. It Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1402 of 2021 dt.03-12-2024 54/65 was stated by him that he has not found any injury on the elbow of the injured. He has accepted that there was no videography during course of medical test of the injured by the members of the Medical Board.
31. It transpires from the aforesaid discussion of oral evidence that three prosecution witnesses have received the injuries during the occurrence, who are PW-2 Rakesh Kumar, PW-7 Nibha Kumari and PW-8 Raghvendra Kumar. It appears from the deposition of PW-2 Rakesh Kumar that appellant Binod, Darshan, Pappu and Pankaj poured acid on him, which caused burn injury on his cheek, neck etc. It was also stated by him that due to acid attack by aforesaid four persons, Raghvendra Kumar (PW-8) lost his ear completely. Beside that, he also received burn injuries on neck, head, stomach, arm and leg. This witness also stated that these aforesaid four persons were equipped with acid bottle in their hand from very beginning of the occurrence, which reflect their preparation and intention qua acid attack. PW-7 Nibha Kumari, who is also one of the injured out of acid attack, stated same version that Binod Mahto, Darshan Kumar, Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1402 of 2021 dt.03-12-2024 55/65 Pappu Kumar and Pankaj Kumar were equipped with acid bottle. All these four persons after holding Raghvendra Kumar (PW-8) poured acid upon him as a result of which, his head, neck from both sides, chest and right hand were burnt completely. PW-8 is Raghvendra Kumar, who received more serious injuries during the occurrence, stated that upon instigation of Ram Jiwan Mahto, Binod Mahto bent him by neck and, thereafter, Pappu Kumar, Pankaj Kumar and Darshan Kumar poured acid upon him as a result of which, he received burn injury on his head, neck and on ear, which he lost completely out of said acid attack. He also received injury in his eye. His chest, back, neck area and stomach also received acid injuries out of said acid attack.
32. The informant (PW-5) also supported the occurrence in the same manner that Binod Mahto, Darshan, Pappu and Pankaj were equipped with acid bottles in their hands. Upon the instigation of Ram Jiwan Mahto, thrown acid upon Raghvendra (PW-8), Rakesh Kumar (PW-2) and Nibha Kumari (PW-7). As per his testimony, Amerika Devi also received injuries on her head but, she not appears to be Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1402 of 2021 dt.03-12-2024 56/65 examined during the course of trial. It appears from his testimony that out of acid attack, injured Raghvendra received more serious injuries.
33. It is settled principle of law that until and unless there is no any compelling circumstances, the testimony of injured witnesses ordinarily not to be disbelieved, as there is no any apparent reason for roping the innocent persons in alleged crime.
34. At this stage, it would be apposite to re-produce para-25 and 26 of the legal report of Hon'ble Supreme Court as available through Nand Lal and Others vs. State of Chhatisgarh [(2023) 10 SCC 470], which is as under:-
"25. We will first consider the issue with regard to non-explanation of injuries sustained by Accused 11 Naresh Kumar. In Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar (1976) 4 SCC 394 : 1976 SCC (Cri) 671], which case also arose out of a conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC, this Court had an occasion to consider the issue of non-explanation of injuries sustained by the accused. This Court, after referring to the earlier judgments on the issue, observed thus:
"12. ... It seems to us that in a murder case, the non-explanation of the injuries Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1402 of 2021 dt.03-12-2024 57/65 sustained by the accused at about the time of the occurrence or in the course of altercation is a very important circumstance from which the court can draw the following inferences:(1) that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version;
(2) that the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most material point and therefore their evidence is unreliable;
(3) that in case there is a defence version which explains the injuries on the person of the accused it is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case.
The omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the accused assumes much greater importance where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution one. In the instant case, when it is held, as it must be, that the appellant Dasrath Singh received serious injuries which have not been explained by the Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1402 of 2021 dt.03-12-2024 58/65 prosecution, then it will be difficult for the court to rely on the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 and 6, more particularly, when some of these witnesses have lied by stating that they did not see any injuries on the person of the accused. Thus neither the Sessions Judge nor the High Court appears to have given due consideration to this important lacuna or infirmity appearing in the prosecution case. We must hasten to add that as held by this Court in State of Gujarat v. Bai Fatima [(1975) 2 SCC 7] there may be cases where the non-explanation of the injuries by the prosecution may not affect the prosecution case. This principle would obviously apply to cases where the injuries sustained by the accused are minor and superficial or where the evidence is so clear and cogent, so independent and disinterested, so probable, consistent and creditworthy, that it far outweighs the effect of the omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries. The present, however, is certainly not such a case, and the High Court was, therefore, in error in brushing aside this serious infirmity in the prosecution case on unconvincing premises.
26. A similar view with regard to non-
explanation of injuries has been taken by Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1402 of 2021 dt.03-12-2024 59/65 this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Madho [1991 Supp (2) SCC 396], State of M.P. v.
Mishrilal, [(2003) 9 SCC 426] and
Nagarathinam v. State, (2006) 9 SCC
57]".
35. One of the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the appellants is that all witnesses are interested witnesses and, therefore, their testimony should not be accepted but, as the version of injured witnesses who are related to each other are so clear, cogent and credible that there is no reason to discard the same, on this score.
36. At this stage, it would be apposite to re- produce para-30 of the legal report of Hon'ble Supreme Court as available through Balraje @ Trimbak vs. State of Maharashtra [(2010) 6 SCC 673], which is as under:-
"30. In law, testimony of an injured witness is given importance. When the eyewitnesses are stated to be interested and inimically disposed towards the accused, it has to be noted that it would not be proper to conclude that they would shield the real culprit and rope in innocent persons. The truth or otherwise of the evidence has to be weighed pragmatically. The court would be required to analyse the evidence Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1402 of 2021 dt.03-12-2024 60/65 of related witnesses and those witnesses who are inimically disposed towards the accused. But if after careful analysis and scrutiny of their evidence, the version given by the witnesses appears to be clear, cogent and credible, there is no reason to discard the same. Conviction can be made on the basis of such evidence."
37. This Court further finds that any faulty investigation or delay in medical examination in present case is not helping the convict/appellant in view of clear-cut, cogent and consistent testimony of three injured witnesses i.e. PW-2, PW-7 and PW-8. Disbelieving the occurrence solely on the ground that the investigation was faulty would amount to only adding insult to the injury received by the injured.
38. At this stage, it would be further apposite to re-produce para-13 of the legal report of Hon'ble Supreme Court as available through Ram Bihari Yadav vs. State of Bihar and Ors. [(1998) 4 SCC 517], as cited by learned counsel for the informant, which is as under:-
"13. Before parting with this case we consider it appropriate to observe that though the prosecution has to prove the case against the accused in the manner stated by it and that Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1402 of 2021 dt.03-12-2024 61/65 any act or omission on the part of the prosecution giving rise to any reasonable doubt would go in favour of the accused, yet in a case like the present one where the record shows that investigating officers created a mess by bringing on record Exh. 5/4 and GD Entry 517 and have exhibited remiss and/or deliberately omitted to do what they ought to have done to bail out the appellant who was a member of the police force or for any extraneous reason, the interest of justice demands that such acts or omissions of the officers of the prosecution should not be taken in favour of the accused, for that would amount to giving premium for the wrongs of the prosecution designedly committed to favour the appellant. In such cases, the story of the prosecution will have to be examined dehors such omissions and contaminated conduct of the officials otherwise the mischief which was deliberately done would be perpetuated and justice would be denied to the complainant party and this would obviously shake the confidence of the people not merely in the law-enforcing agency but also in the administration of justice."
39. It would be also apposite to re-produce para-6 of the legal report of Hon'ble Supreme Court as passed in the matter of Karnel Singh vs. State of M.P. [(1995) 5 SCC Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1402 of 2021 dt.03-12-2024 62/65 518], cited by learned counsel for the informant, which is as under:-
"6. We must admit that the defective investigation gave us some anxious moments and we were at first blush inclined to think that the accused was prejudiced. But on closer scrutiny we have reason to think that the loopholes in the investigation were left to help the accused at the cost of the poor prosecutrix, a labourer. To acquit solely on that ground would be adding insult to injury."
40. One of the important submission which was raised during the argument that the medical examination upon the most serious injured, who is PW-8 Raghvendra Kumar was done after about one year and three months, where except scar mark, nothing was found and as such injury appears remotely connected with crime in question.
41. In this context, it would be apposite to reproduce Exhibit-20, which is the order of this Hon'ble High Court dated 15.05.2019, which was passed when the appellant Darshan Kumar, Binod Mahto and also Pappu Kumar approached this Court for their bail. The relevant part Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1402 of 2021 dt.03-12-2024 63/65 of Criminal Misc. No.14945 of 2019 dated 15.05.2019 is required to be reproduced hereinbelow that how after interference of this Court injured PW-8 (Raghvendra Kumar) was examined medically, which is as under:-
"On physical look at Raghvendra Kumar in open Court, it is imperative on this Court to exercise power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and to direct the Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar, Patna to constitute a committee of Three Specialized Doctors for burn injuries to immediately examine the injuries on the person of the victim aforesaid and to submit a report within four weeks from today and this Court as well as to the Superintendent of Police, Samastipur in connection with the aforesaid police case and the Superintendent of Police, Samastipur is directed to submit the said report to the trial Court, according to law.
Let a copy of this order be handed over to Mr. Abahy Kumar Roy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for needful."
42. Considering the aforesaid order, the prayer of bail of Pappu Kumar was also rejected by this Court through Cr. Misc. No.59553 of 2019 dated 21.10.2019, which is Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1402 of 2021 dt.03-12-2024 64/65 Exhibit-20/1, wherein the Hon'ble Court pleased to direct the Principal Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna to constitute a committee of three doctors having specialized knowledge qua burn injury to examine the injuries on the person of the victim and also to submit a report within four weeks.
43. After aforesaid interference of Hon'ble High Court in judicial side, the exact injuries of injured was brought on record. From the facts, it appears that initially injury report was not prepared by the concerned doctor correctly and it was only after the interference of the High Court, looking the physical condition of the injured (PW-8), a special team was constituted, which was the only reason for delaying the medical report, showing scar mark only. Any benefit if be given out of such delay to accused persons would only amount to approval of such wrong practice, as to win over the witnesses. People must realize that the rule of law must stand above, which cannot be managed by means of money or influence, as it happened in present case in collusion with concerned persons like doctor and police, who are otherwise duty bound to place correct evidence before the court as to Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1402 of 2021 dt.03-12-2024 65/65 assist in imparting justice to persons, who are the victim of crime.
44. Considering the aforesaid circumstances, this Court did not find any force in the submission of learned counsel appearing for appellants qua delayed medical examination of injured persons, which was done by specialized team of doctors in furtherance of aforesaid orders of this Court by exercising its extra-ordinary power as available through Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
45. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, the appeal appears devoid of any merit and, accordingly, same stands dismissed.
46. Office is directed to return back the Trial Court Records along with a copy of the judgment to the trial Court forthwith.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.) Sanjeet/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE 26-09-2024 Uploading Date 04-12-2024 Transmission Date 04-12-2024