Delhi District Court
State vs Ankit on 25 October, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. AKASH JAIN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-04
EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
CNR No:- DLET-01-006049-2021
SC No:- 365/2021
FIR No : 15/2021
Police Station : New Ashok Nagar
Under Section (s) : 326(A) IPC
In the Sessions case of:-
State
versus
Ankit
S/o Sh. Badri Prashad
R/o Indra Nagar,
Manikpur Bargah,
Chitrakoot, UP.
Date of Institution : 17.09.2021
Date of reserving Order : 26.09.2024
Date of Pronouncement : 25.10.2024
Final Judgment : Convicted
Appearances :-
For the State : Sh. Sukhbeer Singh, Ld.
Addl. PP.
For the accused persons : Sh. Sudhakar Singh, Ld. LAC.
JUDGMENT
1. In the present case, accused namely Ankit was sent up for trial on the basis of report under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') for AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2024.10.25 17:06:12 +0530 FIR No:- 15/2021 State v. Ankit Page No. 1 of 17 throwing acid upon his wife with intention to cause permanent or partial damage or deformity or burns on 17.01.2021 at 08:00 PM, at House no. E-82B, New Ashok Nagar, Delhi within the jurisdiction of Police Station New Ashok Nagar.
Factual Matrix
2. The case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 17.01.2021 at about 08:49 PM, duty officer at Police Station New Ashok Nagar received an information at CCTNS that one man had thrown acid on a lady tenant. The duty officer recorded the said information vide GD No. 45-A and the said information was marked to SI Raghuraj Singh on phone and DD No. 45-A was sent to him. Thereafter, SI Raghu Raj Singh along with Ct. Vishnu reached at the spot i.e. house no. E-82B, New Ashok Nagar, Delhi where they came to know that injured lady had already been removed to LBS Hospital by PCR Van. They both reached at LBS Hospital and met with injured lady 'R'(identity withheld) who was receiving medical treatment and thereafter, SI Raghu Raj Singh and Ct. Vishnu collected her MLC.
3. On 18.01.2021, at about 12:30 AM, inquiries were made from the injured and her statement was recorded wherein she stated that she got married to accused 5-6 years ago and that they had a child aged 4 years. She stated that accused Ankit used to frequently beat her and that they later came to Delhi for their livelihood. She further stated that accused quarreled with her on some suspicion and went away to his native village in UP along with their child. She further stated that when she came back to the native village at her in-laws place, accused had severely beaten her AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2024.10.25 17:06:20 +0530 FIR No:- 15/2021 State v. Ankit Page No. 2 of 17 and did not hand over their child to her and drove her out of their house. She accordingly severed all the ties from the accused. She stated that 3-4 days prior to the incident, accused Ankit had called her and had threatened her with dire consequences. She further stated that on the day of incident, accused came to her room and forcibly dragged her outside her room from her hair and when she refused to accompany him, he threw acid upon her which was brought by him in a bottle. Thereafter, somebody called on 100 number and sprinkled water on her. Later on, police arrived and took her to LBS hospital.
4. IO accordingly prepared rukka and got the FIR registered and the investigation commenced. The IO seized clothes of injured and plastic bottle containing acid at the instance of injured. Thereafter, at the instance of the injured 'R', IO prepared the site plan and examined one eye-witness. Later on accused got arrested at the instance of injured. IO/ SI Raghu Raj Singh prepared the charge-sheet in the present case and filed the same before the Court. During further investigation, IO collected the FSL report and submitted the supplementary charge-sheet before the Court. After statutory compliance under Section 207 IPC, present case was committed to the Court of Sessions and assigned to this Court vide order dated 17.09.2021 passed by Ld. District & Sessions Judge, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
Charge
5. Vide order dated 02.03.2022, accused namely, Ankit was formally charged for commission of offences under Section Digitally signed 326(A) IPC. AKASH by AKASH JAIN Date:
JAIN 2024.10.25 17:06:26 +0530 FIR No:- 15/2021 State v. Ankit Page No. 3 of 17 Prosecution Evidence
6. In order to prove its case prosecution examined as many as 09 witnesses. For the sake of convenience, I have categorized those witnesses in following 03 categories:-
Eye Witnesses
7. Testimonies of PW-1 Ms. Arti, who is an independent eye-witness of the incident in question and PW-4/ injured 'R' would be discussed in detail at later stage.
Police Witnesses
8. PW-2 is ASI Chander Bhan who was the duty officer and deposed that on 17.01.2021, at about 08:49 PM he received a call at CCTNS that one man had thrown acid upon a lady tenant. Upon receiving the call, he made a DD entry bearing GD no. 45-A and proved the same as Ex.PW2/A.
9. PW-3 is SI Jaswant Singh who was also the duty officer and deposed that on 18.01.2021 at about 01:23 AM, Ct. Vishnu handed over rukka to him for registration of the FIR and he made endorsement on the rukka and proved the same vide Ex.PW3/A. PW-3 further proved the FIR vide Ex.PW3/B. He also recorded the DD no. 5-A and proved the same vide Ex.PW3/C.
10. PW-5 is HC Neeraj Singh who deposed that on 24.02.2021, he was posted at Police Station New Ashok Nagar, Delhi and IO gave him two sealed pullandas containing the clothes and one plastic bottle inside them and the same were submitted by him to FSL, Rohini on the instructions of IO. He proved the Road AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2024.10.25 17:06:31 +0530 FIR No:- 15/2021 State v. Ankit Page No. 4 of 17 Certificate no. 79/21/21 vide Ex.PW5/A. After depositing the same, he handed over the receipt/ acknowledgment Ex.PW5/B in this regard to MHC(M).
11. PW-6 is Constable Vishnu. He deposed that on 17.01.2021, he was posted at PS New Ashok Nagar as Constable on emergency duty and on that day, at about 9:00 PM, a PCR call pertaining to throwing of acid on a lady in E-Block, New Ashok Nagar was received. Thereafter, he along with IO/ SI Raghuraj went to the spot where they came to know that the victim was already taken to LBS hospital by PCR. They consequently went to Hospital where IO/SI Raghuraj collected the MLC of injured 'R' and recorded her statement. PW-6 stated that thereafter, SI Raghuraj prepared a rukka and handed over the same to him for registration of FIR. PW-6 got the FIR registered through duty officer PW-3 and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to IO. PW-6 further deposed that complainant/ injured came to the spot from hospital and handed over her clothes i.e. blue colour legging, green colour kurta and blue colour jacket which she was wearing at the time of incident. IO kept those clothes in a cloth parcel of white colour and sealed it with the seal of 'NAN07 PS NEW ASHOK NAGAR DISTT. EAST" and took it into possession. PW-6 deposed that injured also produced one small plastic bottle having white colour cap containing small amount of acid like substance and it was in squeezed form. The bottle was also seized and sealed by the IO. PW-6 correctly identified his signature on seizure memos Ex. PW 4/B and Ex. PW 4/C. IO also examined one girl namely, Arti and prepared site plan at the instance of injured. No CCTV camera was found by the IO which AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2024.10.25 17:06:37 +0530 FIR No:- 15/2021 State v. Ankit Page No. 5 of 17 could have covered the spot of incident. PW-6 further deposed that at about 7:00 / 7:30 AM accused Ankit was arrested at the instance of complainant/ injured, was interrogated and personally searched. PW-6 proved the personal search memo vide Ex. PW6/A. Accused Ankit produced a rail ticket regarding journey from Manikpur, Chitrakut, UP to Hazarat Nizamuddin, Delhi. PW-6 proved the seizure memo of the same as Ex.PW6/B. The said ticket was further proved as Ex. PW6/C. Thereafter, disclosure statement of accused was recorded by IO and accused was taken for his medical examination to the LBS Hospital.
12. PW-6 correctly identified the clothes of injured as Ex. P1 (colly) and squeezed plastic bottle containing acid as Ex. P2. He also identified the accused at the instance of Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Expert witnesses
13. PW-7 is Sh. Yogesh Chandra Pandey, Senior Scientific Officer, FSL, Rohini, Delhi who deposed that on 24.02.2021, two sealed parcels with the seal of NAN07 PS NEW ASHOK NAGAR EAST DISTT. were received at FSL, Rohini through Ct. Neeraj and the same were marked to him for examination. The seals were intact and tallied with sample seals. On chemical examination, Exhibit A and Exhibit B were found to contain hydrochloric acid and sulphuric acid and after examination, the remnants of exhibits were sealed with the seal of YCP FSL DELHI. PW-7 proved his report as Ex.PW7/A. Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN AKASH Date:
JAIN 2024.10.25
17:06:43
+0530
FIR No:- 15/2021 State v. Ankit Page No. 6 of 17
14. PW-8 is Dr. Aakansha Singhal, Medical Officer, LBS Hospital, Delhi who had been deputed to depose on behalf of Dr. Ankita Gahlot who had left the services of hospital. PW-8 stated that she had worked with Dr. Ankita in due course of her service at hospital and seen her writing and signing. She deposed that he had seen MLC of injured 'R' bearing MLC no. 17/21 dated 17.01.2021 prepared by Dr. Ankita Gahlot. On MLC, the injured had given history that she was assaulted by her husband on 17.01.2021 at around 8:15 PM. PW-8 stated that it was a case of acid attack poured on left side of body and face. The following injures were mentioned as per MLC :-
(i) Redness over left side of face.
(ii) Burnt marks on left breast of size 2x1 cm.
15. PW-8 stated that the patient had not consented for internal examination. UPT was conducted and it was found negative and the nature of injury was opined as grievous.
16. PW-9 is IO/ SI Raghu Raj Singh who deposed on same lines as that of PW-6 regarding collecting DD No. 45A on 17.01.2021, reaching at spot, meeting injured at LBS hospital, collecting her MLC, recording her statement, preparing rukka Ex. PW 9/A, getting FIR registered, seizure of clothes of injured and plastic bottle containing acid, preparation of site plan Ex. PW 9/B, examination of eye-witness Arti, arrest of accused, recording his disclosure statement Ex. PW 9/C, depositing case property in malkhana, sending the exhibits to FSL and preparation of charge- sheet. He further correctly identified the accused in Court as well as seized case property. AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2024.10.25 17:06:49 +0530 FIR No:- 15/2021 State v. Ankit Page No. 7 of 17
17. All the witnesses were duly cross-examined by Ld. LAC for the accused.
Statement of Accused person(s)
18. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, accused Ankit was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and incriminating evidence appeared against him during trial was put to him. The accused denied entire incriminating evidence and stated that he was falsely implicated in the present case by the complainant/ injured as she wanted to get rid of him and wanted to marry someone else after sending him behind the bars. While, admitting the fact that he went to meet his wife 'R' on 17.01.2021 at her Delhi rental address, he alleged that his wife/ injured poured acid upon herself and her clothes to wrongly frame him and infact he had put water on her. He further stated that all the recoveries in the case are planted. The accused did not choose to lead defence evidence. As such, matter straightaway proceeded for final arguments.
Final Arguments
19. It was argued by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that on the given date, time and place of incident, accused Ankit went to meet his wife 'R', tried to forcibly take her along with him and when she refused to go along with him, he threw acid upon her which was being carried by him in a small plastic bottle. It was argued that the injured/ complainant had categorically supported the case of prosecution and withstood the test of cross-examination by Ld. LAC for accused leaving no room of doubt in establishing the guilt of AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2024.10.25 17:06:54 +0530 FIR No:- 15/2021 State v. Ankit Page No. 8 of 17 accused. It was argued that the version of complainant was duly affirmed by an independent eye-witness Ms. Arti and further the MLC of injured, nature of injuries received by her and FSL report corroborate the factum of acid attack upon injured on the given date of incident. It was thus, prayed that the accused be convicted for offence punishable under Section 326-A IPC and be suitably punished.
20. Per contra, it was argued by Ld. LAC for accused that accused was falsely implicated in the present case by the complainant/ injured as she wanted to get rid of him and wanted to marry someone else after sending him behind the bars. It was argued that the testimony of injured 'R' reflects that after about 1-1 ½ years of incident in question, she got married to one person namely, Rajesh and also had a baby from the said marriage without obtaining divorce from accused Ankit. It was argued that this conduct of victim/ complainant 'R' affirms the version of accused that he was wrongly framed by the complainant in the present case. It was stated that injuries reflected in the MLC of injured shows mere redness over left side of her face. It was argued that it is highly unlikely that a victim has received such minor injury i.e. redness on face, when acid with potency of hydrochloric acid and sulphuric acid was poured on her face. It was further argued that the complainant malafidely poured acid on her clothes to falsely implicate accused and all the recoveries in the case are planted.
Analysis and Findings
21. Before discussing the rival submissions and dwelling upon the merits of the case, it is imperative to refer to Section 326A AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2024.10.25 17:07:00 +0530 FIR No:- 15/2021 State v. Ankit Page No. 9 of 17 IPC, which reads as under:-
Section 326A. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid, etc.:- Whoever causes permanent or partial damage or deformity to, or burns or maims or disfigures or disables, any part or parts of the body of a person or causes grievous hurt by throwing acid on or by administering acid to that person, or by using any other means with the intention of causing or with the knowledge that he is likely to cause such injury or hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and with fine:
Provided that such fine shall be just and reasonable to meet the medical expenses of the treatment of the victim:
Provided further that any fine imposed under this section shall be paid to the victim.
22. In order to bring home the guilt of accused, testimonies of PW-1 Arti and injured/ PW-4 are vital. The testimonies of both these witnesses are being discussed herein for better appreciation of evidence.
23. PW-1 is Ms. Aarti, who is cited as eye-witness in this case by prosecution. She deposed that house no. E-82/B, Gali no. 5, second floor, Vasundhara Enclave, East Delhi, New Ashok Nagar, Delhi belongs to her mother and she was also living there. She stated that on 01.01.2021, one girl namely 'R' started living alone at the aforesaid house as a tenant on the first floor and that she told her that her husband would come after 15 days as he was staying in village. PW-1 deposed that on 17.01.2021 at about 8:00 PM, when she was present at her house, she heard commotion from the first floor where 'R' was residing. She consequently rushed downstairs and saw that accused Ankit was dragging 'R' AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2024.10.25 17:07:06 +0530 FIR No:- 15/2021 State v. Ankit Page No. 10 of 17 after pulling her hair and hand and was also beating her. When 'R' refused to go downstairs, accused Ankit took out one plastic small bottle from his pocket and threatened 'R' that he would pour acid on her face. Though 'R' tried to save herself but the accused Ankit threw acid from the said plastic bottle on her face and clothes. PW- 1 deposed that she immediately poured water from a bucket on 'R' and called at 100 number. She later on got to know that accused Ankit is husband of 'R'. Thereafter, PCR officials came at the spot and she went upstairs. PW-1 correctly identified accused in Court.
24. During cross-examination, PW-1 stated that the water which she poured over 'R' was kept nearby. She further stated that police remained at her house till 5:00 am.
25. PW-4 'R' is the victim/ injured who deposed that she did love marriage with accused Ankit and they both were residing in their village. She deposed that accused Ankit used to quarrel and beat her on daily basis on trivial issues. They had a son from the said wedlock and later on they came to Delhi to earn money. She alleged that in Delhi, accused Ankit started doubting her character and started beating and quarreling with her again and again. She stated that two-three days prior to the lockdown, accused Ankit quarreled with her badly and took away her son and went to Chitrakoot, Village Manikpur. She deposed that she was living alone in Delhi and during lockdown, when she went to her matrimonial house at village Manikpur, Chitrakoot, accused Ankit gave her severe beatings and drove her away from the matrimonial house. She thus, came back to Delhi alone and ended her marital relations with accused Ankit. PW-4 further deposed that prior to 3- AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2024.10.25 17:07:13 +0530 FIR No:- 15/2021 State v. Ankit Page No. 11 of 17 4 days of the incident, accused Ankit called her on phone, talked to her and asked her whereabouts. She asked from accused Ankit whether he came along with her son, but he informed that he had not brought their son along with him. So she did not go to meet him on which accused was very furious and threatened her with dire consequences. PW-4 deposed that thereafter, accused Ankit somehow took her address and on 17.01.2021 at around 8:00-8:30 pm, he came to her house and caught hold of her hair and dragged her outside her room. He tried to take her with him and when she refused to do so, accused took out a bottle of acid out of his jacket and threw it on her face and on her wearing clothes. Thereafter, she felt burning sensation on her face and became unconscious. The daughter of her landlady consequently poured water on her whole body and someone called at 100 number. Thereafter, police reached at the spot and took her to LBS Hospital where she received medical treatment. PW-4 deposed that she gave her complaint to the police as Ex.PW4/A and shown the place of incident to the IO. She also gave her wearing clothes on which the accused Ankit had thrown the acid at the time of incident. The clothes are Ex.PW4/B. PW-4 further deposed that IO seized the small plastic bottle from which the accused poured acid upon her vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/C.
26. On 18.01.2021, accused Ankit was arrested by IO at the instance of PW-4 vide arrest memo Ex.PW4/D. PW-4 identified her clothes i.e. one green coloured kurti (which was in tatters), one blue coloured jacket and one legging as Ex.P-1 (colly). PW-4 also identified the plastic bottle in a squeezed form AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2024.10.25 17:07:18 +0530 FIR No:- 15/2021 State v. Ankit Page No. 12 of 17 having a cap and little liquid of greenish yellow colour inside it from which accused Ankit poured the acid on her. Same is Ex.P-2.
27. During cross-examination, PW-4 stated that she made a complaint to the police while she was residing in village but no action was taken on her complaint. She stated that she cannot write but she knows how to sign. She stated that the room where the incident took place was taken by her on rent and Ankit was not aware about the address of her room. However, she once called accused Ankit from the mobile phone of her neighbour and accused Ankit took her residential address from the said neighbour. PW-4 stated that she had married with one Rajesh after 1-1 ½ years of the incident and she has a baby boy out of the said wedlock. She admitted that she had not taken divorce from accused Ankit as he was in jail. PW-4 stated that when the police arrived at the spot, there were around 20 people present. She stated that the documents were prepared by the IO on the next day of the incident and no document was signed by any neighbour in her presence. She denied the suggestion of Ld. LAC for accused that she herself poured acid on her clothes to falsely implicate accused to get rid of him.
28. Suffice it to say, PW-4/ injured 'R' categorically deposed that on the relevant date and time of incident, accused Ankit came to meet her at her rental address in Delhi, tried to forcibly take her along with him and when she refused to come along, he threw acid upon her which was being carried by him in a small plastic bottle. The witness painstakingly narrated the entire incident in a consistent manner and nothing substantial could be AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2024.10.25 17:07:24 +0530 FIR No:- 15/2021 State v. Ankit Page No. 13 of 17 culled out from her cross-examination which could discredit her testimony. The version of PW-4 is further corroborated with the testimony of an independent eye-witness i.e. PW-1 Arti who is daughter of landlord in whose house injured 'R' was residing at the first floor. PW-1 duly affirmed that on the relevant date and time of incident after hearing commotion from the first floor, she came down from 2nd floor and saw accused dragging 'R' while pulling her hair and also beating her. When 'R' refused to go downstairs along with accused, he threw acid from a small plastic bottle on 'R'. PW-1 consequently poured water from a bucket nearby and also called on 100 number.
29. It is well settled that for appreciating the evidence of a victim, the presence of such witness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted. While appreciating his/ her evidence, the Court must not attach undue importance to minor discrepancies, but must consider broad spectrum of the prosecution version.
30. In the case of Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, (2009) 9 SCC 719, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India laid down the special evidentiary status accorded to the testimony of an injured witness and while relying on its earlier judgments held as following:-
".... 19. Darshan Singh (PW 4) was an injured witness. He had been examined by the doctor. His testimony could not be brushed aside lightly. He had given full details of the incident as he was present at the time when the assailants reached the tubewell.
20. In Shivalingappa Kallayanappa v. State of Karnataka, 1994 Supp (3) SCC 235, this Court has held that the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2024.10.25 17:07:30 +0530 FIR No:- 15/2021 State v. Ankit Page No. 14 of 17 unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies, for the reason that his presence on the scene stands established in case it is proved that he suffered the injury during the said incident.
21. In State of U.P. v. Kishan Chand, (2004) 7 SCC 629, a similar view has been reiterated observing that the testimony of a stamped witness has its own relevance and efficacy. The fact that the witness sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence, lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. In case the injured witness is subjected to lengthy cross- examination and nothing can be elicited to discard his testimony, it should be relied upon (vide Krishan v. State of Haryana, (2006) 12 SCC 459). Thus, we are of the considered opinion that evidence of Darshan Singh (PW4) has rightly been relied upon by the courts below...."
31. In the backdrop of aforesaid legal propositions, it can be thus, concluded that testimony of an injured witness stands on a higher pedestal than any other witness, in as much as he/ she sustains injuries in the incident and his/ her presence at the scene of crime cannot be doubted and such witness would not want to let his/ her actual assailant go unpunished merely to falsely implicate a third person for commission of such offence. The present case is on rather better footing as the testimony of injured/ PW-4 is duly corroborated by an independent eye-witness i.e. PW-1 Arti. The factum of presence of accused Ankit at the spot of incident on the relevant date and time is not in dispute as also affirmed by him in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.. The argument raised by Ld. LAC for accused that accused was falsely implicated in the present case by complainant to wrongly frame him so as to enable 2nd marriage with some 3rd person does not inspire any confidence as nothing substantial could be brought on record by the accused to support the said plea. Also, it is highly unlikely that AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2024.10.25 17:07:37 +0530 FIR No:- 15/2021 State v. Ankit Page No. 15 of 17 the complainant/ victim would have taken such a drastic step by pouring acid on her face merely to falsely implicate the accused. Even otherwise, the theory/ argument raised by Ld. LAC for accused does not find support from the record and clearly belied by the testimony of independent eye-witness i.e Arti who was a natural witness to the incident being residing on 2 nd floor of the house. No suitable justification could be afforded on behalf of accused as to why would the said independent witness deposed against him.
32. The ocular testimonies of PW-1 and PW-4 have been further corroborated by the medical evidence on record. The MLC of injured 'R' is duly proved by PW-8 Medical Officer, LBS Hospital, Delhi vide Ex. PW 8/A, according to which, the injured had suffered injuries inter-alia (i) redness over left side of face and
(ii) burnt marks on left breast of size 2x1 cm. The nature of injury was further opined as grievous. It was further proved on record by Senior Scientific Officer, FSL, Rohini vide Ex. PW 7/A that the clothes of injured and contents of seized plastic bottle were found to contain Hydrochloric acid and Sulphuric acid.
33. The argument of Ld. LAC for accused that it was highly unlikely that a victim merely received injury i.e. redness on face, when acid with potency of hydrochloric acid and sulphuric acid was poured on her face, lacks merit as the MLC further reflects burnt marks on body of victim and the nature of injury opined by the expert was grievous.
Digitally signed by AKASH JAINAKASH Date:
JAIN 2024.10.25
17:07:43
+0530
FIR No:- 15/2021 State v. Ankit Page No. 16 of 17
Conclusion
34. Keeping in view the totality of facts, circumstances and observations as above, it is held that Ld. LAC for accused failed to point out any material contradictions in the testimony of injured 'R'/ PW-4 and other eye-witness i.e. PW-1/ Arti, so as to render the same unreliable and unworthy of credit. It has been thus, proved beyond reasonable doubt that on the relevant date, time and place of incident, accused Ankit threw acid upon his wife i.e. injured 'R' with intention to cause permanent or partial damage or deformity or burns and caused grievous injuries on her person.
35. Hence, accused accused Ankit S/o Sh. Badri Prashad is held guilty for offence under Section 326-A IPC and is accordingly convicted of the same.
36. Let accused be heard separately on the point of sentence. Copy of the judgment is given to accused free of cost.
AKASH Digitally signed
by AKASH JAIN
JAIN Date: 2024.10.25
17:07:51 +0530
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN (AKASH JAIN)
COURT ON 25.10.2024 ASJ-04, EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS
DELHI
This judgment contains 17 pages and each paper is signed by me.
AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH JAIN JAIN Date: 2024.10.25 17:08:01 +0530 (AKASH JAIN) ASJ-04, EAST DISTRICT KARKARDOOMA COURTS DELHI FIR No:- 15/2021 State v. Ankit Page No. 17 of 17