Delhi District Court
Ndps Act:(Central District):Tis ... vs Jagdish on 16 September, 2016
1 of 15 IN THE COURT OF SH. NARINDER KUMAR:SPECIAL JUDGE2 NDPS ACT:(CENTRAL DISTRICT):TIS HAZARI COURT:DELHI Case No. : 28091/16 SC No. : 01/16 FIR No. : 623/14 PS : Karol Bagh U/s. : 326A, 326B IPC State Versus Jagdish S/o Sh. Ranjeet R/o Footpath, Maruti Company, Kapsehra, Gurgaon, Haryana. .....Accused Date of Institution : 02.01.2016 Date of Judgment : 16.09.2016 J U D G M E N T Jagdish S/o Ranjeet, (accused), has been facing trial for offences under section 326A and 326B IPC on the accusation that on 09.09.2014, at about 06:45 am, in front of street No. 42, Beadon Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, he threw acid on the person of his wife Smt.Bimla, who used to reside separately from State v. Jagdish Case No.: 28091/2016 Dated: 16.09.2016 2 of 15 him, at her parental house. As a result of this act, acid fell on the person of his wife Smt.Bimla and also on the person of Sunny, minor child of Bhaabhi of Smt.Bimla. Whereas Smt.Bimla suffered grievous hurt, the minor child of her sister in law suffered simple injuries. 2. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that on the given date Smt.Bimla, wife of the accused, Santosh, her sisterinlaw (Bhaabhi) were returning from public lavatory after having answered the call of nature. Sunny, minor child of sisterinlaw was in the lap of mother. The accused was carrying acid in a bottle wrapped in a newspaper which he threw resulting in injuries on the person of his wife and the minor child. 3. Case was registered on the statement made by Smt.Bimla before SI Naresh Kumar, who happened to reach Lady Hardinge Medical College & Hospital on receipt of DD No. 8A, accompanied by Ct.Anant Kumar. SI Naresh Kumar sent the statement to the police station through the Constable, and it led to registration of this case. State v. Jagdish Case No.: 28091/2016 Dated: 16.09.2016 3 of 15 4. Case of the prosecution is that after the occurrence the accused ran away. He was arrested subsequently on 28.09.2015
by SI Rajpal in presence of Ct. Nahar Singh, when produced near Liquour Vend, Ravi Raj Chowk, Karol Bagh, by his fatherinlaw Sh. Cheeku and brother in law Sh. Praveen.
5. During investigation, SI Naresh Kumar seized T shirt of child Sunny when produced by his mother Santosh. Medical report relating to Smt.Bimla was also collected from Lady Hardinge Medical College & Hospital. Medical record relating to the child was collected from Kalawati Saran Hospital.
6. On completion of investigation, challan was put in court. After compliance with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. case was committed to Court of Session, and ultimately assigned to this court.
7. Prima facie case having been made out, charge for offences U/s 326A and 326B IPC was framed against the accused on 13.01.2006. Since the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, prosecution examined following twelve witnesses:
State v. Jagdish Case No.: 28091/2016 Dated: 16.09.2016 4 of 15 (1) PW1 W/SI Suman (2) PW2 Bimla (3) PW3 HC Vikas (4) PW4 Praveen (5) PW5 Smt. Santosh (6) PW6 Ct. Anant (7) PW7 Ct. Nahar Singh (8) PW8 Sh. Roop Singh (9) PW9 Dr. Ramya Pemula (10) PW10 SI Naresh Kumar (11) PW11 Dr. Amit Modi (12) PW12 HC Ramesh Chand
8. When examined under section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused admitted that Bimla is his wife and that she was residing at her parental house since July, 2014, but denied all the remaining allegation levelled by the prosecution witnesses against him. Despite opportunities, accused opted not to lead evidence in defence.
9. Arguments heard. File perused.
State v. Jagdish Case No.: 28091/2016 Dated: 16.09.2016 5 of 15
10. Learned Addl. PP for the State submits that prosecution has established its case against the accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubt that it was he, who, on 09.09.2014, at about 6.45 am, in the area of Karol Bagh threw acid on his wife which fell not only on her but on the minor child of her sister in law, and that the accused, who had run away from the spot soon after the occurrence, was apprehended subsequently when produced by his father in law and brother in law. Learned Addl. PP for the State further submits that medical evidence also lends corroboration to the version of the prosecution regarding outcome of the wrongful act of the accused. The contention is that the accused be held guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 326A and 326B IPC.
11. On the other hand, learned defence counsel has submitted that there are contradictions in the statements of Smt. Bimla and her sisterinlaw, Smt. Santosh on material aspects and as such no reliance should be placed on their testimony. It has further been submitted that as per evidence on record, no marks or stains of acid were observed by the investigation officer at the State v. Jagdish Case No.: 28091/2016 Dated: 16.09.2016 6 of 15 given place, which creates doubt in the version narrated by Smt. Bimla and her sister in law Smt. Santosh, particularly when no incriminating material could be recovered from the accused or from the spot. Further, it has been submitted that the accused has been got falsely implicated by his wife as she wanted to have divorce from him, but he refused to divorce her. So, it has been argued that accused is entitled to acquittal.
12. Occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 09.09.2014, at about 6.45 am, outside street no.42, Beadonpura, Karol Bagh, Delhi. Case was registered on the statement of Smt. Bimla, wife of the accused, which she made before SI Naresh Kumar at Lady Hardinge Medical College and hospital, where she was got admitted by her brother at about 7.45 am. SI Naresh Kumar reached the hospital on the basis of information communicated to him vide DD no.8A recorded at PS Karol Bagh at 8.15 am. Ex.PW1/X i.e. copy of DD No.8A contains information received from HC Anil Kumar present on duty at the aforesaid hospital. HC Anil Kumar informed that Smt. Bimla w/o Jagdish, aged 25 years had been got admitted by her brother Praveen at the said hospital, with burns due to acid, as per MLC State v. Jagdish Case No.: 28091/2016 Dated: 16.09.2016 7 of 15 No. 47598/14. The information was also to the effect that a child, Sunny, aged 5 years had been got admitted at Kalawati Hospital as per MLC No. 192/14.
SI Naresh Kumar immediately reached the hospital where Smt. Bimla was found lying admitted. He obtained opinion of the doctor regarding fitness of Smt. Bimla to make statement and then recorded her statement which is Ex.PW2/A. After the statement was concluded, SI Naresh Kumar appended endorsement Ex.PW10/A at 9.20 am sent the same to Police Station through Ct. Anant Kumar, which led to registration of this case vide FIR Ex.PW1/A, at 9.50 am.
PW1 Woman SI Suman has proved recording of DD entry Ex.PW1/X on the basis of information received from Lady Hardinge Hospital, and recording of FIR Ex.PW1/A, on the basis of rukka brought to the police station Anant. Statement of PW1 has gone unchallegned for want of any cross examination.
From the above evidence, it stands established that statement of Smt. Bimla came to be recorded and on its basis FIR was registered without any delay. This rules out possibility of any deliberations or consultations or fabrication of any evidence.
State v. Jagdish Case No.: 28091/2016 Dated: 16.09.2016 8 of 15
13. As regards the occurrence, PW2 Smt. Bimla wife of the accused has deposed regarding her presence and presence of her Bhabhi Smt. Santosh with her five years son, Sunny, at about 6.00 am, after they were returning from public lavatory. During those days, she used to reside at her parental house, in street no.42 Beadonpura Karol Bagh, Delhi.
In her statement Ex.PW2/A and in the statement made before the court she stated that her husband, a drug addict, used to give her beatings and as such she was residing at her parental house for the last two years. In this way she has deposed regarding the time and place of occurrence, in consonance with her statement made before the police at the hospital. Even accused has admitted in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C that his wife was residing at her parental house since July 2014 and bitter relations between them. PW4 Praveen stated in his crossexamination that his sister wanted to take divorce from the accused but he used to say that he would not give her divorce. In view of this statement, even if wife of the accused wanted divorce from accused, law did not allow him to throw acid on the person of his wife. For the same reason, it cannot be said that the wife has falsely implicated the husband for such a grave accusation.
State v. Jagdish Case No.: 28091/2016 Dated: 16.09.2016 9 of 15 According to PW2 Smt. Bimla when she and her sister in law were returning from public lavatory she saw her husband holding a bottle wrapped in a newspaper. Suddenly she witnessed her husband throwing acid on her resulting in injuries on the left side of her face and also on the back side of her right shoulder. Further according to her, her husband also threw acid on her neck and also on the back of child Sunny who was in the lap of her sister in law Smt. Santosh. Thereafter, the accused ran away, as further stated.
Accused has denied the aforesaid allegation levelled by his wife.
Prosecution has examined Smt. Santosh, sister in law of PW2 Smt. Bimla, as PW5 to support the allegations levelled against the accused. According to her, on 09.09.2014 at about 6/6.30 am, she and her sister in law were returning from public lavatory, while her son was in her lap. When they had covered a short distance from public lavatory, the accused came there having something wrapped in a newspaper. Suddenly he threw acid from a bottle and it fell on the head and near the shoulder of her son. The accused again threw acid which fell on the eye of Bimla. The witness firstly stated that the acid fell on the right State v. Jagdish Case No.: 28091/2016 Dated: 16.09.2016 10 of 15 eye, but again said that perhaps it fell on her left eye. But she did not exactly remember the concerned eye where the acid fell. Further according, accused ran away from the spot.
As noticed above, Smt. Bimla was got admitted at Lady Hardinge hospital by her brother Praveen, at 7.45 am, with history of throwing of acid. Dr. Sonny Bherwali conducted medicolegal examination on the person of Smt. Bimla vide MLC Ex.PW8/A and observed burning sensation over the left eye. MLC Ex.PW8/A has been proved by Sh. Roop singh, ClerkPW8 as the concerned Dr. Sonny Beharwali is no more serving in the said hospital and his latest address is also not available in the hospital record. According to PW8, he had been receiving documents from the said Doctor in the Record Department of the hospital and as such he was in a position to identify his handwriting and signature. Therefore, when PW8 stated in his cross examination that the said doctor never signed any document in his presence, it cannot be said that he had not been receiving documents from the said doctor or that he was not in a position to identify his handwriting and signatures.
PW9 Dr. Ramya Pemula from RML Hospital has proved her opinion that the injury on the eye of Smt. Bimla was State v. Jagdish Case No.: 28091/2016 Dated: 16.09.2016 11 of 15 grievous in nature. Statement of PW9 has gone unchallenged for want of any cross examination. This witness in her chief examination explained that the scar on the left upper eyelid of Smt. Bimla was the result of acid/chemical burn, making her unable to close her left eye "completely".
PW4 Praveen, brother of Smt. Bimla, has supported the case of prosecution having removed the injured to Lady Hardinge Hospital. Name of Praveen finds mention in the MLC of Smt. Bimla.
Although it has been contended by learned Defence counsel that there are contradictions in the statement of PW2 and PW5, none has been pointed out.
The above medical evidence lends corboration to the oral testimony of PW2 and PW5.
14. PW2 Smt. Bimla admitted that after the accused had thrown acid on her, many persons gathered there but she displayed ignorance if the police official asked any public person to join investigation. The injured having been taken to hospital, how could she come to know if the police had or had not joined any person from the public while investigating the case. Even otherwise, when PW5 Smt. Santosh has also supported the State v. Jagdish Case No.: 28091/2016 Dated: 16.09.2016 12 of 15 statement of PW2, non joining of any person from the locality does not adversely affect the case of prosecution.
It is in the crossexamination of PW2 Smt. Bimla that when her husband threw acid on her person, it also fell on the wall. But she displayed ignorance if police officials scratched the wall to take any sample.
PW10 SI Naresh Kumar has stated in his cross examination that when he reached the spot at about 12:00pm despite search, no bottle was traceable at the spot. Further according to him, no stains of acid were traceable at the spot. Even if the Investigating Officer could not find any bottle at the spot or any stains of acid, in view of the medical evidence coupled with the convincing testimony of PW2 and PW5 regarding the manner in which the occurrence took place, the same does not create any doubt in the prosecution case, particularly when not only PW2 the minor son of PW5 also suffered injuries.
15. Medical evidence in the form of MLC Ex.PW11/A pertains to Sunny, 3 years old child. This MLC was prepared at State v. Jagdish Case No.: 28091/2016 Dated: 16.09.2016 13 of 15 08:00am. The child was brought to hospital by his mother Smt. Santosh, PW5. As per history provided to the Doctor, it was a case of acid attack. PW11 Dr. Amit Modi, Sr. Resident from Kalawati Saran Children Hospital has proved MLC Ex.PW11/A. According to the Doctor, he medically examined the child on 09.09.2014 and observed following injuries on his person:
(1)simple burn injuries over left side of neck. (2)simple burn injuries over left side of skull.
16. In the opinion of the Doctor, both the injuries were due to acid. Statement of PW11 has gone unchallenged for want of crossexamination. So, it stands established that Sunny, Child suffered these burn injuries while he was in the lap of his mother Smt. Santosh, who was accompanying her sisterinlaw on 09.09.2014.
17. It is also case of prosecution that SI Naresh Kumar took into possession Tshirt Ex.P1 when produced by Smt.Santosh, vide memo Ex.PW6/A. PW10 SI Naresh Kumar has deposed about it. Statement of PW10 also finds coroboration from the statement of PW5 Smt. Santosh and PW6 Ct. Anant, in State v. Jagdish Case No.: 28091/2016 Dated: 16.09.2016 14 of 15 whose presence the Tshirt was seized by the Sub Inspector on the same day i.e 09.09.2014.
It is not the case of the prosecution that clothes, which Smt. Bimla was wearing also got burnt at the time of occurrence. Although PW5 Smt Santosh stated that acid stains fell on the clothes of her sisterinlaw, no such question was put to PW2 Smt.Bimla or PW10 SI Naresh Kumar in their cross examination for explanantion. Had stains of acid fallen on the clothes of Smt. Bimla, SI Naresh Kumar must have seized the same like seizure of 'T' shirt.
18. In view of the above discussion, Court does not find any ground to disbelieve the cogent and convincing evidence of Smt. Bimla and her sisterinlaw Smt. Santosh, which finds support from medical evidence and seizure of the Tshirt of the child, and when case came to be registered without any delay, naming the accused and specifying the act done by him, with its consequences.
19. No other argument has been advanced by Ld.Defence Counsel.
State v. Jagdish Case No.: 28091/2016 Dated: 16.09.2016 15 of 15
20. As a result, court finds that prosecution has proved its case against the accused for an offence u/s.326A IPC, for voluntarily causing grievous injuries by throwing acid to Smt. Bimla and also for an offence u/s.326B IPC, for the injuries sustained by the three years old child, who was in the lap of his mother, as the accused had reason to believe that the companions of Smt. Bimla were likely to suffer injuries as a result of his act in throwing of acid.
Consequently, accused is held guilty of the offences U/s.326A & 326B IPC and convicted thereunder.
Announced in the open Court on this 16th day of September, 2016.
(NARINDER KUMAR) SPECIAL JUDGE2 NDPS ACT:(CENTRAL DISTRICT) TIS HAZARI COURT:DELHI State v. Jagdish Case No.: 28091/2016 Dated: 16.09.2016