Delhi District Court
State vs . Seema Soni on 4 August, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. SACHIN SANGWAN :
ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE (FAST TRACK COURT - 01) :
SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT : SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
STATE Vs. Seema Soni
Case No. : 2561/2016
FIR No. : 169/2016
U/S : 326A IPC
PS : Govind Puri
Particulars of the case
a) Date of Offence : 12.02.2016
b) Offence complained of or proved : 326A IPC
c) Name of the complainant : Sh. Rehenur Islam
d) Name of the accused : Seema Soni
Husband name Sh. Chunchun Soni
R/o H. No. 1443/9, Balmiki
Mohalla, Tuglakabad
Village, New Delhi
Plea of the accused : Accused pleaded not
guilty.
Final order : Accused convicted for the
offence u/s 326B IPC
Date of Institution : 28.05.2016
Date of Judgment reserved for orders : 08.07.2023
Date of Judgment : 04.08.2023
SC No. 2561/2016
FIR No. 169/2016 State vs. Seema Soni Page no. 1 of 31
Ld. Additional PP for the State : Sh. Ashok Debbarma
Ld. Counsel for the complainant : Sh. Abdus Samad
Ld. Counsel for the accused : Sh. Amit Kumar
JUDGMENT
1. CHARGE-SHEET 1.1 As per charge-sheet, on 12.02.2016 DD No. 11A was marked to SI Papu Lal Katewa. Accordingly, he reached at the spot ie., H. No. RZ-129, Gali No. 15, Tuglakabad Extension, New Delhi, however, neither the caller nor any eyewitness was found. On inquiry, it was found that the injured had been shifted to some unknown hospital. Thereafter, on receiving of DD No. 14A dated 12.02.2016, SI Papu Lal Katewa reached at the Batra Hospital and obtained MLC No. 11622/16 of one Seema Soni W/o Chunchun Soni R/o Balmiki Mohalla, Tuglakabad Village, New Delhi but said patient had left against medical advice (LAMA) and was not available in the hospital. 1.2 Thereafter, DD No. 22A was received by SI Pappu Lal Katewa and he reached at the gate of Majeedia Hospital but neither the complainant nor the caller was found there. Vide DD No. 38B dated 12.02.2016 the said call was kept pending because SI Papu had to proceed on leave. The further investigation was marked to SI Kishore. During investigation, SI Kishore reached Majeedia Hospital wherein complainant Rehnur Islam was found under treatment. He SC No. 2561/2016 FIR No. 169/2016 State vs. Seema Soni Page no. 2 of 31 received his MLC 105/16 wherein the alleged history was of acid attack on his face by a lady on 12.02.2016 around 8-9 AM at his home and diagnosis was of grievous injury. The injured stated that he will give his statement later on and accordingly the call was kept pending. On 19.02.2016, IO/ SI Kishore again reached at Majeedia Hospital and found the injured Rehnur Islam admitted therein and he handed-over IO a written complaint.
1.3 Vide said complaint, complainant Rehnur Islam stated that he is tenant at H. No. RZ-129, 1st floor, Gali No. 15, Tughlakabad Extension, New Delhi and he is permanent resident of Village Satarpur, PS Chanchal District Malad, West Bengal and he is doing work of supplying garments. On 12.02.2016, at about 8 AM, when he was present at the above-said house, one lady namely Seema Soni W/o Raja Saah @ Chunchun R/o H. NO. 330, Bazaar Mohalla, Tughlakabad Village, aged about 30 years who is previously known to him came at his house and asked him that why his phone was switched off. Before he could answer the question, she told him that she will not leave him in a state to show his face to anyone. Then she took out a bottle from which she threw some liquid on his eyes and thereafter, he felt itching in his eyes. Thereafter, he sat down after putting his hands on his eyes. He was taken to hospital by his family members and his treatment was still going on. He stated that Seema was after him since 2.5 or 3 years. Seema told him that if he does not give her money and if he does not act as per her wishes, she will implicate him in a false case. Complainant stated that he was afraid of Seema and prayed for SC No. 2561/2016 FIR No. 169/2016 State vs. Seema Soni Page no. 3 of 31 taking action against her.
1.4 On the basis of said written complaint and the MLC, tehrir was prepared u/s 326A IPC by IO and handed-over the same to Ct. Pradeep for registration of FIR.
IO asked complainant about eyewitnesses. Thereafter, IO recorded the statement of complainant's wife Smt. Manuwara in the hospital and she stated that she was present at the place on incident when the incident happened and she corroborated the allegations of the complainant. 1.5 Thereafter, IO and Manuwara went to the place of incident and at the instance of Manuwara, he prepared the site plan. IO called the crime team on the spot. After the crime team arrived, they stated that they do not have any chemical expert alongwith them. Crime team inspected the spot, clicked photographs and apprised the IO about crime scene report SOC No. 221/16.
Thereafter, Ct. Pradeep reached at the spot and handed-over the copy of FIR and original rukka to IO. He gave a copy of FIR to the wife of complainant. IO inquired from neighbours at the spot and searched for eyewitness therein.
During investigation, IO make effort to find out the accused Seema but she could not be found at her address.
1.6 On 07.03.2016, the present FIR was again marked to SI Papu Lal Katewa. Thereafter, SI Papu Katewa made inquiry from neighbourhood of the complainant. SI Papu Lal Katewa recorded the statement of eyewitness SC No. 2561/2016 FIR No. 169/2016 State vs. Seema Soni Page no. 4 of 31 Harminder Kaur who was the owner of the house of complainant and eyewitnesses Jeenat and Rahul who were tenants in the building. All of them corroborated the version of complainant.
1.7 Thereafter, SI Papu Lal Katewa made inquiry from the complainant and he disclosed that he was wearing one shawl at the time of incident and acid fell on said shawl also and he also used it to clean his face. He was asked to produce the said shawl on which he said that it had been washed but he will produce the same in the police station.
Thereafter, complainant alongwith his wife and children reached at police station and handed-over two photographs to the SI P. L. Katewa and informed him that same were taken with his wife's mobile phone when he was under treatment. SI P. L. Katewa took the same into possession vide seizure memo. Complainant also produced one shawl and informed that it was the same shawl which he had worn on the date of incident and on which the drops of acid had fallen. SI P. L. Katewa converted the shawl into pulanda and sealed the same with the seal of PK and seized it.
1.8 On 26.03.2016, SI P. L. Katewa called accused Seema in the police station wherein she was interrogated, arrested and her disclosure statement was recorded.
Thereafter, accused Seema Soni produced one shawl and stated that she was wearing the said shawl on the day of incident and acid also fell on it. SI P. L. Katewa seized the same. Accused Seema Soni was produced before the SC No. 2561/2016 FIR No. 169/2016 State vs. Seema Soni Page no. 5 of 31 concerned court and remanded to judicial custody.
1.9 During investigation, on 09.04.2016, when he reached at the house of the complainant, he found one eyewitness who was the brother-in-law (saala) namely Abdul Majid of Rehnoor. Abdul Majid deposed that he was the eyewitness of the incident and he corroborated the allegations of the complainant. He further stated that he made call on 100 number from the mobile phone of Rehnoor on the date of incident. Thereafter, he alongwith his sister took Rehnoor to Majeedia Hospital and therein he further tried to make a call on 100 number but there was no signal in the mobile phone.
1.10 After the completion of investigation, accused Seema Soni was kept in Column No. 11 as sufficient evidence was found against her. Charge-sheet u/s 326A IPC was filed against accused Seema Soni.
2. CHARGE 2.1 On the basis of charge-sheet, charge u/s 326A IPC was framed against accused Seema Soni to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Accordingly, prosecution was directed to lead evidence in support of the charge- sheet.
3. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE SC No. 2561/2016 FIR No. 169/2016 State vs. Seema Soni Page no. 6 of 31 3.1 In support of its case, prosecution has examined 15 witnesses as follows:-
Serial Name of the witness Nature of the evidence No. PW1 Rehnoor Islam Complainant/ injured PW2 ASI Yaad Ram Duty Officer of 19.02.2016 PW3 Ct. Inder Raj Police official who deposited the exhibits in the FSL PW4 Smt. Harminder Kaur Eyewitness/ landlord and neighbour of the complainant PW5 W/Ct. Anita DD writer PW6 Smt. Manuvara Eyewitness/ wife of the complainant PW7 Rahul Singh Eyewitness/ neighbour of the complainant PW8 SI Kishore IO who got case registered PW9 Dr. Virender Singh Doctor regarding the eye treatment Sangwan of complainant PW10 Zeenat Ara Eyewitness/ neighbour of complainant PW11 W/Ct. Babita Witness to arrest of accused PW12 Abdul Majid Eyewitness/ brother-in-law of the complainant PW13 ASI Yaadvir MHC(M) PW14 SI P. L. Katewa Main IO of the case PW15 Sh. Santosh Tripathy, Examiner of the shawls Sr. Scientic Officer SC No. 2561/2016 FIR No. 169/2016 State vs. Seema Soni Page no. 7 of 31 (Chemistry), FSL, Rohini 3.2 The prosecution has exhibited following documents/objects in support of its case:- Serial No. of Exhibits Nature of Exhibits No. 1. Ex.PW1/A Statement of the complainant on the basis of which FIR was registered 2. Ex.PW1/B Complainant's application regarding his eye treatment at L. V. Prasad Hyderabad hospital 3. Ex.PW1/C Seizure memo of the shawl of complainant 4. Ex.PW1/D Seizure memo of photographs of complainant 5. Ex.PW1/E Photograph of complainant in injured condition 6. Ex.PW1/F Photograph of complainant in injured condition 7. Ex.P1 Shawl produced by the complainant 8. Ex.P2 Shawl produced by the accused 9. Ex.PW2/A FIR 10. Ex.PW2/B Certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act regarding computerized FIR 11. Ex.PW3/A Copy of RC No. 70/21/16 (movement of SC No. 2561/2016 FIR No. 169/2016 State vs. Seema Soni Page no. 8 of 31 case property) 12. Ex.PW3/B Copy of acknowledgement of RC No. 70/21/16 (movement of case property) 13. Ex.PW5/A DD No. 38B 14. Ex.PW8/A rukka 15. Ex.PW8/B Site plan 16. Ex.PW9/A The medical treatment documents of L. V.
Collectively Prasad Eye Institute Hyderabad of patient Rehnoor Islam
17. Ex.PW9/B The medical treatment documents of L. V. Prasad Eye Institute Hyderabad of patient Rehnoor Islam
18. Ex.PW11/A Arrest memo of the accused
19. Ex.PW11/B Personal search memo of the accused
20. Ex.PW11/C Disclosure statement of the accused
21. Ex.PW13/A Copy of entry No. 1539 of register No. 19
22. Ex.PW14/A DD No. 11A
23. Ex.PW14/B DD No. 14A
24. Ex.PW14/C DD No. 22A
25. Ex.PW14/D Application of PW14 vide which he collected the FSL report
26. Ex.PW14/E FSL Report
27. Ex.X-1 MLC of complainant admitted by accused u/s 294 CrPC
28. Ex.X-2 MLC of accused admitted by the accused u/s 294 CrPC SC No. 2561/2016 FIR No. 169/2016 State vs. Seema Soni Page no. 9 of 31
4. EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 CrPC 4.1 After conclusion of prosecution evidence, accused Seema Soni was examined u/s 313 CrPC wherein she denied all the allegations. She stated that she was the first to inform the incident to the police, however, after two months, police falsely implicated her in this case.
She stated that earlier she and Rehnoor were doing garments business jointly. On the date of incident, Rehnoor/ complainant had called her to give some balance amount to her. When she reached there, he started misbehaving and fighting with her. When she told him that she will dial 100 number, his wife came there and threw acid on her which fell on her shawl, her face and on her tongue. Some part of said acid, thrown by wife of complainant also fell on the face of complainant Rehnoor. She went to police booth but one lady police constable present there asked her to first get medical treatment and come on next date, as at that time no senior police official was present there. Police officials used to call her for two months for registration of her complaint but her FIR was not registered by police against the wife of Rehnoor. She stated that she was the victim in this case. She claimed that she has been falsely implicated in this case by complainant and his wife in connivance with police officials.
SC No. 2561/2016FIR No. 169/2016 State vs. Seema Soni Page no. 10 of 31
5. DEFENCE EVIDENCE 5.1 In her defence evidence, the accused examined two witnesses. 5.2 DW - 1 Sh. Bhola Mandal deposed he was a rickshaw puller. He cannot read and write in Hindi or in English. He does not remember the exact date but 4/5 years ago he was coming from Okhla Mandi and when he reached at Gali No. 15, Tughlakabad Extension, he saw that a quarrel was going on between accused and some gents and ladies. Thereafter, one lady went inside the house and she took something in a bottle and threw it on the accused. Thereafter, he left from there. He cannot identify the lady who had thrown something on the accused.
5.3 DW - 2 Seema Soni examined herself under Section 315 CrPC. She deposed that she is illiterate and only knew how to sign her name. She was doing the work of manufacturing garments and supplied to the shopkeepers. The complainant Rehnoor Islam also used to do the same work. While she was running her factory in Gali No. 2 of Tughlakabad, the complainant approached her with proposal for joint business. Despite her reluctance, she made him a partner due to his persistent requests. The complainant stated that he will invest money within 2-3 months but failed to do so. DW2's elder son Rohit was having TB in his backbone/ spine. When his condition deteriorated one day, she took him to Safdarjung Hospital. Her son was operated upon and she left the factory in the hands of Rehnoor Islam and her younger son Mohit, aged about 10-11 SC No. 2561/2016 FIR No. 169/2016 State vs. Seema Soni Page no. 11 of 31 years at that time. She had goods worth about Rs. 3-4 Lacs in her factory. Rehnoor Islam used to come to meet her in the hospital and she used to ask him about the work and the sale. He told that she should look after her son's health and they shall talk about the business later on. She had to pay Rs. 70,000/- to Rs. 80,000/- to the doctor for arranging the treatment of her son. Whenever she used to call him, his phone was off and when she asked him about the same, he used to give evasive replies. Her husband was not with her and was a drunkard and had left her for his village when her son was in hospital. She had to manage her children and son in the hospital and she was getting frustrated. In the meanwhile, complainant Rehnoor Islam left for his village without informing her and switched off his mobile. She waited for him for at least two months. Then she even went to his village to search him out. She was searching for him as he had sold off the goods of the factory without giving any money or accounts to her. Complainant was not found in his village and she even stayed in his village for two days for searching him. She had to return from there as she had to look after her kids in Delhi. She again waited for complainant. She had to close her factory so as to take care of her kids and since she had run out of money to run the factory. Then she started running paratha rehri with her kids. From said earnings, she managed to survive and provide for her kids and her son's medicines. Meanwhile, she kept on trying to trace the complainant.
Finally, she was able to trace the complainant at Chachol, District Malda, West Bengal after about one to one and a half years from the time when SC No. 2561/2016 FIR No. 169/2016 State vs. Seema Soni Page no. 12 of 31 her son had become unwell. She caught the complainant and took him to the police station Chachol. The policeman kept the complainant in lockup for two days and finally he arranged and paid Rs. 60,000/- to her. The complainant had to give Rs. 3.5 Lac to her and he said that the balance amount shall be given by him when he will come to Delhi and earn money. He told that balance from Rs. 3.5 Lac pertains to the amount which he had to recover from shopkeepers and he will return the balance amount to her after coming to Delhi.
After few months, the complainant came to Delhi but she was not informed by him. Somebody told her that he had come to Delhi. His phone was again switched off. He was residing in Gali No. 15 or 16 in Tughlakabad. She went there and he was on first floor. Therein altercation/ hot discussion started between them. His wife, saala and children were also present there. She stated that she asked him that he is not making any efforts to collect the alleged money from the shopkeepers and how she and her kids will survive. He said that he does not care if her children may die. She became angry on hearing the same. She told him not to use ill words about her children as her kid has recovered from illness. However, complainant replied that whether her tummy was not full even after getting Rs. 60,000/- and he will not give a penny more to her and she may do anything. She told him that she will make call on number 100 and will take him to police station. In the meanwhile, his wife hurled verbal abuses on her. She asked the complainant to control his wife's tongue. Then his wife pushed her and she fell down. Then she caught complainant and told him that SC No. 2561/2016 FIR No. 169/2016 State vs. Seema Soni Page no. 13 of 31 she was being ill treated because of him. She tried to call the police on number 100 using her Nokia mobile phone. However, his wife and saala forcefully snatched her phone. She also received injury on her back as she fell down due to such forceful snatching. She asked the wife of complainant to return her phone but she refused. The saala of complainant smashed her phone and also thumped his foot on the phone and destroyed her phone. When she told them that she was going physically to police and she pulled complainant with her to take him to police, complainant's wife brought a bottle containing some liquid and threw the same on her but since she was pulling the complainant and tussle was going on between her and the complainant, the said liquid fell on him also. She was wearing a stole and the drops of liquid fell on the stole and also on her face and she started feeling itching on her face. Said liquid also fell on the complainant since they were pulling each other. She could not see on which part of the body of complainant the said liquid fell. She asked complainant's wife what she had thrown on her. Complainant's wife said that since accused is from jeweler caste and since tejaab is used by jewelers she shall implicate her in a false case. Accused straightaway ran to the police booth near Tara Apartments where the policeman was sleeping. She knocked and woke him up. Even the complainant, his saala and wife came there but the policeman told them that first they all should get themselves treated in hospital. Then she went to the hospital, probably Majeedia or Batra Hospital. She was asked by the doctor to get admitted in the hospital for 2-3 days but the charges were around Rs. 6,000/-.
SC No. 2561/2016FIR No. 169/2016 State vs. Seema Soni Page no. 14 of 31 Since, she did not have money, she did not get admitted in the hospital. Then she went to the AIIMS, Trauma Center. Since most of the liquid had fell on her stole and she had not swallowed the liquid, she was given medicines and was discharged. Then she went to the police station Govind Puri but she was asked to come on next day as the lady official told her that Sir was not available. Next day, she again went to the police station and she gave a written complaint after getting it written by her son. The police registered a case on her complaint after 3-4 days.
During her examination, she exhibited the notarized agreement dated 19.12.2014 between herself and the complainant as Ex.DW2/A, the treatment papers of her son Rohit as Ex.DW2/B and copy of FIR No. 233/2016 PS Govind Puri registered on her complaint as Mark D1.
Accused was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Additional PP for the State.
6. ARGUMENTS 6.1 Arguments were addressed by the Ld. Defence Counsel as well as Ld. Additional PP for the State. Arguments were also addressed by Ld. Counsel for the complainant.
6.2 Ld. Additional PP for the State has submitted that the complainant has deposed against the accused as per his complaint. His allegations are SC No. 2561/2016 FIR No. 169/2016 State vs. Seema Soni Page no. 15 of 31 corroborated by various other eyewitnesses. Even the medical evidence corroborate the allegations as the MLC of the complainant reflects the history of acid attack and the observations of the doctor regarding the patient are in consonance with an acid attack. Ld. Counsel for complainant has also argued that case of prosecution has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and the defence of accused is completely bogus as accused is totally unreliable witness. Rather, she has made allegations of rape against the complainant but the complainant has been duly acquitted in the said case.
6.3 On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the accused has submitted that neither the alleged acid nor the container thereof was recovered. Even acid could be detected in the examination of the shawl of the complainant or at the floor at the spot. Hence, prosecution has failed to even prove that acid was used in the alleged incident. It is submitted that all the alleged witnesses are interested witnesses and there are inconsistencies in their statements. Further, defence evidence has been led to show that the accused had not thrown any liquid on the complainant and rather, it was thrown by the wife of complainant. It is submitted that admittedly the accused was out numbered so it was highly unlikely that accused could have thrown any liquid on the complainant. It is also submitted that there is 7 days delay in registration of the case showing that allegations are an afterthought. Further, the medical evidence does not show that there was any disfigurement on the face/ body of the complainant. It is submitted that the alleged eye injury of the complainant was due to prior history of injury.
SC No. 2561/2016FIR No. 169/2016 State vs. Seema Soni Page no. 16 of 31 Accordingly, the ingredients of Section 326A IPC have not been proved. It is submitted that no case is made out u/s 326A IPC and accused is entitled to be acquitted.
7. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION 7.1 I have considered the arguments of the parties and have perused the record.
7.2 The relevant provisions applicable in present case are reproduced herewith:-
Section 326A IPC - 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 or 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 or 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".
7.3 Considering the defence of the accused and the arguments led by the prosecution / defence Counsel, the following points for determination arise:-
1. Whether acid was thrown on the complainant?SC No. 2561/2016
FIR No. 169/2016 State vs. Seema Soni Page no. 17 of 31
2. Whether accused had thrown the acid on the complainant?
3. Whether accused is liable to be convicted for offence u/s 326A IPC as charged?
8. APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND APPLICATION OF LAW 8.1 The Counsel for accused has argued that prosecution has failed to prove that any acid was found on the clothes of the complainant or at the spot. Even the container of the same was never recovered. Accordingly, there is nothing on record to prove that any acid was in fact used during the alleged incident and therefore no offence is made out u/s 326A IPC. I have considered said arguments.
It may be noted that FIR of the case was registered after a week of the incident. Therefore, in the given circumstances, it was not practically possible that the acid would have remained present at the spot i.e. the floor. Further, as per the seizure memo Ex.PW1/C, the clothes of the complainant had been washed before same were seized and therefore, it was natural that acid could not have been detected on the same. However, even if no acid was recovered from the spot or was not found in the clothes of complainant, still the effects of the liquid used in the incident can be seen from other facts. Firstly, the complainant has specifically deposed that when the liquid was thrown on him, SC No. 2561/2016 FIR No. 169/2016 State vs. Seema Soni Page no. 18 of 31 he sustained burn injuries on his face and felt pain in his eyes. Secondly, the MLC of the complainant has been proved as Ex.X1. Same shows that complainant was medically examined within an hour of the incident. Further, the history given by the patient was:-
"history of acid attack on face by a lady on 12.02.2016 around 08- 09:00 AM in premises of patient's home" Most importantly the following observations have been made by the doctor in the MLC :-
1. Both eye mild swelling and redness
2. Peri-orbital redness
3.Both lips swelled
4. Mild erythema face Considering the aforesaid observations of the doctor, it is abundantly clear that a corrosive substance was thrown on the face of the complainant. It may be noted that explanation 1 to Section 326B IPC provides that for the purposes of Section 326A and 326B IPC, "acid" includes any substance which has acidic or corrosive character or burning nature that is capable of causing bodily injury leading to scars or disfigurement or temporary or permanent disability. Thus, for the purpose of Section 326A IPC, the term acid has no technical meaning in chemical terms wherein acids are defined on the basis of their PH value (level of acidity). It has been held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Hakim and Anr vs State (Crl. A. 209/2020 date of decision 13.10.2022) that the word acid has not been given a strict meaning confined to SC No. 2561/2016 FIR No. 169/2016 State vs. Seema Soni Page no. 19 of 31 its chemical formula or definition. It could be any substance capable of producing the aforesaid effects.
Thirdly, during her examination u/s 313 CrPC, the accused has herself stated that the wife of complainant threw "acid" on her and part of said "acid" also fell on the face of complainant. Though, during her examination as a witness she has not used the specific term acid but she has stated that said liquid also fell on her and she started feeling itching on her face. Thus, she herself has admitted that liquid, used in the incident, was of corrosive / burning nature. Thus, from the overall facts and circumstances, it stands established that whatever substance was used during the incident had acidic or corrosive character or burning nature and was capable of causing bodily injury leading to scars or disfigurement or temporary or permanent disability. 8.2 The most material point of determination in the present case is who threw the acid on the complainant. The accused has not disputed her presence at the spot and rather has taken a specific defence that it was the wife of the complainant who has thrown the acid on the accused but the same accidentally fell on the complainant. Now, we shall proceed further to examine whether prosecution has been able to prove that the acid was thrown by the accused or her defence is a probable defence.
8.2 (a) The prosecution has examined six witnesses regarding the incident. Out of said six witnesses four witnesses i.e., complainant, his wife, his brother- in-law and one neighbour Zeenat Ara have categorically deposed that it was the SC No. 2561/2016 FIR No. 169/2016 State vs. Seema Soni Page no. 20 of 31 accused only who has thrown the acid on the complainant. Even other two witnesses ie., the landlord of the complainant and one neighbour have deposed about circumstantial facts against the accused.
The main witness of the case is PW1 i.e. the complainant. He has deposed as per his complaint and has stood the test of cross-examination also. Likewise, the wife of the complainant and his brother-in-law have also corroborated the allegations of the complainant. It may be noted that accused has admitted about the presence of said family members of the complainant the time of the incident. Accordingly, it cannot be disputed by the defence that said witnesses are not the eyewitnesses to the incident. Even one neighbour of the complainant i.e. PW10 has also corroborated the case of prosecution. The presence of said witness is also natural being the next door neighbour of the complainant. Though the other two witnesses regarding the incident have not deposed as eyewitness to the act of throwing the acid however, they have deposed about the circumstantial facts. PW4, who was the landlord of complainant, has deposed that she heard noise and reached at the spot and found accused Seema fighting with wife of complainant. She intervened in the matter and found that complainant was rubbing his eyes. She has specifically deposed that the face of complainant was burnt due to acid injuries. Even PW7 Rahul, who was neighbour of the complainant, has deposed that he heard the shouts of daughter of complainant. He had seen some liquid material like acid on the hands and face of that girl. He started cleaning her wounds with a white cloth.
SC No. 2561/2016FIR No. 169/2016 State vs. Seema Soni Page no. 21 of 31 He then saw accused and the wife of the complainant grappling with each other and they both fell in front of his door. They slipped due to the acid lying on the floor. He deposed that he do not know who had thrown the acid but he came to know from the other people collected there that accused had thrown acid. He had also seen that complainant had sustained acid injuries and he was having his hand on his eyes.
It may be noted that all the eyewitnesses have denied the defence taken by the accused that it was the wife of complainant who threw the acid on accused but the same accidentally fell on the complainant.
Ld. Counsel for accused has submitted that in his complaint the complainant has mentioned that accused was having acid in a glass bottle whereas PW10 has deposed it was in a white transparent plastic bottle. Further, complainant has stated that accused took out bottle from which she poured some material into another pot and then threw the liquid on him. However, no other witness have mentioned about such pot. Further, PW2 has deposed that daughter of the complainant also got acid on her hand and face but no such allegations have been made in the FIR. He has also argued that PW10 has deposed that acid was thrown when complainant was in staircase but as per site plan acid was thrown in gallery. Hence, none of eyewitness is reliable. I have considered the arguments of defence counsel.
As far as description of bottle being a glass bottle or white transparent plastic bottle is concerned, a transparent bottle of plastic containing SC No. 2561/2016 FIR No. 169/2016 State vs. Seema Soni Page no. 22 of 31 liquid may look like a glass bottle containing some liquid. Further, the incident of acid throwing happened in seconds. Hence, said contradiction can be explained away. As far as use of pot is concerned, no other witness has deposed about it since it has been mentioned by the witnesses ie., PW1, PW6, PW10 and PW12 that accused brought acid bottle concealed under her shawl. Further, PW12 has deposed in his cross-examination that when accused and complainant were talking to each other and standing closely, during said conversation, she had thrown the acid. Accordingly, only the complainant was in the immediate proximity of accused when the acid was thrown and other witnesses were at a short distance. Hence, the complainant was the best person to state about the manner of throwing the acid. As far as, non mentioning of daughter of complainant in the FIR is concerned, the complainant has deposed about the presence of his daughter Reshma with him in his examination in chief and has clarified in his cross-examination that the police did not want any minor children to be involved in Court matters. As far as, mentioning the place of incident as staircase by PW10 is concerned, the site plan shows that spot of throwing acid was just adjacent to the staircase. Accordingly, none of the arguments of Ld. Defence Counsel has been able to raise any reasonable doubt in the case of prosecution. Moreover, the case has to be seen in its totality and the discussion in succeeding paras shall show that no other conclusion can be arrived at except that it was the accused only who had thrown the acid.
8.2 (b) The circumstantial facts of the case lean heavily towards the SC No. 2561/2016 FIR No. 169/2016 State vs. Seema Soni Page no. 23 of 31 allegations of the complainant. As claimed by the complainant and his brother- in-law the police was immediately informed. The DD entry Ex.PW14/A categorically shows that at 8:20 AM, it was reported to the police by way of phone call that one lady had thrown acid on a man. There appears no reason as to why brother-in-law of complainant shall call the police if his own sister would have thrown the acid. On the contrary, no phone call regarding any acid attack on accused or attempt thereof was made by her. As discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the medical examination of the complainant shows that there was a splash of acid on his face. On the contrary, the MLC Ex-2 of the accused does not mention any injury. It does not even mention about the acid attack. Rather, the history of patient was given as " poison (? acidic smell) given to patient forcefully". As per the examining doctor the patient complained of "difficulty in breathing, swallowing and burning sensation on throat and chest region" . Prosecution witnesses have deposed that after throwing the acid there was a scuffle between accused and complainant's wife and as per PW7 they even slipped due to the acid lying on the floor. Therefore, the accused would have got some acid on her body due to subsequent grappling on the floor and would have inhaled acidic fumes during such grappling on floor.
8.2 (c) Further, the accused has changed her version regarding the incident over the period of time. As mentioned above, initially in her medical examination, she has alleged poisoning i.e., forceful feeding of acid. Thereafter, she got registered a cross FIR one month after the registration of the present case SC No. 2561/2016 FIR No. 169/2016 State vs. Seema Soni Page no. 24 of 31 FIR. Copy of said FIR has been filed by accused herself as Mark D1. Perusal of same shows that in the said FIR the accused has stated that the wife of complainant gave severe beatings to her and threw acid on her and also snatched her chain. However, in her detailed examination as defence witness she has not uttered a single word that she was severely beaten or that her chain was snatched. Further, said FIR was got registered against complainant on allegations of rape on the false promise of marriage. However, in her detailed examination the accused has not uttered a word about such allegations. Moreover, accused has deposed as DW2 about her phone being snatched and smashed by complainant's wife/ brother-in-law but surprisingly, no such allegations are there in her FIR and further no such facts were put in cross examination of any prosecution witness. Further, scrutiny of testimony of accused shows that she was admittedly frustrated with complainant's conduct and it shows that she had strong resentment against him and motive to cause harm to him.
Further, in her examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C. the accused has stated that on the date of incident she was called by complainant to give her some balance amount. However, as DW2 she has deposed that somebody told her that the complainant had come to Delhi but his phone was switched off, so she herself came looking for him. Moreover, accused has herself exhibited an agreement dated 19.12.2014 as Ex.DW2/A. As per said document complainant had taken loan of Rs 60,000/- from accused and he had repaid her in full and SC No. 2561/2016 FIR No. 169/2016 State vs. Seema Soni Page no. 25 of 31 nothing remains due. Thus, her own document goes against the claim of accused that complainant had to give her 3.5 Lacs and that even after Rs. 60,000 the balance amount was pending. Thus, none of her statements are consistent. Even otherwise, in her examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C, she has deposed that the wife of complainant threw acid on her which fell on her shawl, her face and on her tongue. However, as mentioned earlier, the MLC of accused does not show any acid effect on her face at all. On the contrary, the MLC of complainant show that his face suffered full on acid splash, with effect on eyes, forehead, lips and the skin of face. Thus, it does not appear even probable that acid was thrown on accused but she escaped unhurt whereas same got splashed on the complainant. Even the other defence witness examined by accused as DW1 appears to be a procured witness. Said witness has deposed that he was a rickshaw puller and was coming from Okhla. As per him, when he reached in the street he saw a quarrel wherein one lady took out a bottle from her house and threw its contents on accused. Firstly, the incident happened on first floor and as shown in site plan the incident happened in gallery between the row of rooms on first floor. It may be noted even accused has admitted that incident happened on first floor and defence has not disputed the site plan also. Thus, such incident could not have been visible to a passerby on road at the ground floor. Secondly, DW1 has not uttered a word that acid also fell on a man. Thus, Court is convinced that he is a procured witness.
8.2 (d) The Counsel for accused has also argued that there is 7 days delay SC No. 2561/2016 FIR No. 169/2016 State vs. Seema Soni Page no. 26 of 31 in registration of the case and hence prosecution case is doubtful. I have considered said argument. However, it does not appear that such delay was on the part of the complainant. Rather, it appears that said delay was on account of police. Firstly, there were two calls from complainant side to the police regarding the incident, the first one within few minutes of the incident, as reflected in DD no. 11A dated 12.02.2016 Ex.PW14/A and the second one at 11:35 AM from the Hospital where complainant was admitted, stating that police has not arrived. In both of said calls the gist of incident was reported i.e. acid attack on a man. The first IO has stated that he did not find the victim/witness at the spot and same was natural as victim required immediate hospitalization so he would have to shifted to hospital immediately without waiting for police. The IO has stated that he did not find anyone at the gate of the hospital. However, as per charge-sheet the first IO went on leave and thereafter second IO SI Kishore Kumar was marked the investigation. Second IO/PW8 has deposed that on 19.02.2017 he was posted in PS Govindpuri and due to leave of SI Pappu Lal, on 19.02.2017 he went to hospital and recorded the statement of complainant. Neither first IO nor second IO has deposed that they met the complainant on the day of incident or soon thereafter but he refused to give statement. Apparently, due to first IO going on leave the matter got delayed and FIR was not recorded on the date of incident or very next day thereof. 8.3 Accordingly, it stands proved beyond reasonable doubts that it was accused only who threw acid on the complainant. Now the next question is SC No. 2561/2016 FIR No. 169/2016 State vs. Seema Soni Page no. 27 of 31 whether accused is liable for the offence u/s 326A of IPC. Though, the prosecution has successfully proved that the accused threw acid on complainant, however, Ld. Counsel for accused has argued that the medical evidence does not show any disfigurement of the face/ body of the complainant and even the alleged eye injury of the complainant had a prior history. Accordingly, no case is made out u/s 326A IPC even on legal grounds. I have considered said arguments.
Section 326A IPC provides following results of acid attack as ingredients of the offence, i.e., :-
A. Causing of permanent or partial damage or deformity to anybody part of victim, OR B. Burning or maiming or disfiguring or disabling of anybody part of victim, OR C. Causing grievous hurt In the MLC of the complainant, the doctor has mentioned nature of injury as " Grievous". Section 320 IPC provides the definition of grievous hurt. It states that "The following kinds of hurt only are designated as "grievous":--
First. - Emasculation.
Secondly. - Permanent privation of the sight of either eye.
Thirdly. - Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear, Fourthly. - Privation of any member or joint.
Fifthly. - Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint.SC No. 2561/2016
FIR No. 169/2016 State vs. Seema Soni Page no. 28 of 31 Sixthly. - Permanent dis-figuration of the head or face.
Seventhly. - Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth. Eighthly. - Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits".
However, the description of injuries of the complainant in MLC does not fit in any of categories of Section 320 IPC from first to fifthly or seventhly or eightly. The MLC does not even mention about permanent dis- figuration of head or face and only mentions redness of skin around eyes, mild redness of face and eyes, swelling of lips. It may be noted that no medical tests were recommended in MLC so the opinion was not given on any other criteria except the aforesaid examination/ observation. However, from said medical examination, no case of grievous injury is made out. Ld. Counsel for complainant has argued that complainant suffered damage to his eyesight due to acid attack. He has submitted that documents of eye treatment of complainant have been duly proved by the prosecution. I have considered his arguments also. The concerned opthamologist has been examined as PW9. He has deposed that complainant was examined on 27.02.2016 with complaint of loss of eyesight due to chemical falling in his eyes. However, interestingly, he has deposed that as per his opinion the injuries suffered by patient in the incident of February 2016 may be simple. He also deposed that patient had pre-existing condition of cornea transplant for which he was given medicine and he had improved a lot.SC No. 2561/2016
FIR No. 169/2016 State vs. Seema Soni Page no. 29 of 31 Thus, it has not been proved beyond the reasonable doubts that complainant suffered any grievous hurt in the incident.
As far as other ingredients of Section 326A are concerned, no permanent damage or deformity is reported in MLC of complainant. No partial damage or deformity of any body part is mentioned. No burns of first, second or third degree are mentioned. There is no maiming or disabling of any body part. As mentioned earlier there is no disfigurement also.
Apparently, it appears that the acid used on complainant was not a concentrated one. Accordingly, the milder effect of the diluted acid takes it out from the scope of section 326A IPC. Nonetheless, it does no means that accused will go scot free. The situation in hand is squarely covered under Section 326B IPC. It provides - Voluntarily throwing or attempting to throw acid - "Whoever throws or attempts to throw acid on any person or attempts to administer acid to any person, or attempts to use any other means, with the intention of causing permanent or partial damage or deformity or burns or maiming or disfigurement or disability or grievous hurt to that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be liable to fine". It has been proved that accused has stated that she will not leave complainant in a state to show his face to anyone. Even otherwise, the act of throwing acid itself shows malicious intent of the accused. Thus, the act of throwing acid coupled with intention of causing burns / disfigurement bring the act of accused within the scope of Section 326A IPC, irrespective of the effect of acid on complainant.SC No. 2561/2016
FIR No. 169/2016 State vs. Seema Soni Page no. 30 of 31 Though accused has not been charged for Section 326B IPC but same is a minor and cognate offence of Section 326A IPC. Hence, in view of Section 222 Cr.P.C. accused is liable to be convicted for offence u/s 326B IPC.
9.1 In view of aforesaid said discussion, accused Seema Soni is convicted for offence u/s 326B IPC. Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN SANGWAN SANGWAN Date:
2023.08.04 16:00:58 (Announced in the Open Court +0530 on 4 th August 2023) (SACHIN SANGWAN) Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC)-01, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi/04.08.2023 SC No. 2561/2016 FIR No. 169/2016 State vs. Seema Soni Page no. 31 of 31