Delhi District Court
State vs . Suraj on 19 February, 2011
State vs. Suraj
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AJAY KUMAR KUHAR
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE02:SOUTH EAST
SAKET COURT: NEW DELHI
IN RE: Sessions Case No. 309/09
FIR No. 277/09
PS H.N. Din
U/s 307 IPC
State Vs. Suraj, S/o Sh. Kasa Ram,
R/o H.No. 221, Near Qureshi Masjid,
Basti Hazrat Nizamuddin, New Delhi.
Order on Sentence
I have heard the arguments on the point of sentence.
1. The convict Suraj was held guilty and convicted for the offence
U/s 326 IPC vide the judgment dated 17.02.2011. The Ld. Addl. Public
Prosecutor had stated that the convict has committed a grave offence by
throwing acid on his niece, nephew and sisterinlaws. He submitted that
the offence was committed with full consciousness by the convict as at the
time of committing the offence, he has extended the threat to the
complainant that he will deface her and her mother. He submitted that the
injured have received serious burn injuries due to the acid thrown upon
them by the convict and they have been opined as dangerous.
2. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the convict Sh. P.K. Mittal
SC No. 309/09 1/18
State vs. Suraj
from DLSA has prayed for a lenient view for the reason that the convict has
no previous criminal record and the offence has been committed on the
spur of the moment in the heat of passion. The convict has stated that he
has two brothers and two sisters and he is earning his livelihood by doing
the work of denting and painting. He submits that he is remorseful and
request for a lenient view.
3. "Sentencing is a crucial strategy of Criminal Law in achieving
social defence and resocialization of the offender. Sentencing is a facet of
social justice. None can dispute the need to humanize sentencing as a tool
of reformation. If the social pressure compels a Court to take cognizance
of the society's cry for retribution where the offence is committed in a
diabolic and a brutal manner of a magnitude where the conscience of the
society is revolted, the same social sanction has a catalyst - to respect the
worth of personhood and the right of a human being in its residual human
essence".
4. These are the observation of Delhi High Court in State Vs. Raj
Kumar Khandelwal 2009 IV AD (Delhi) 691. While dealing with the
question of sentencing of an accused, in this judgment, Hon'ble High Court
advocate the principle of proportion between the crime and the punishment
and advise to strike the balance between the mitigating and aggravating
circumstances while awarding appropriate sentence.
5. The convict was sent for trial and charged for the offence U/s
307 IPC, however, his conviction has been recorded U/s 326 IPC for
SC No. 309/09 2/18
State vs. Suraj
causing burn injuries on four persons by throwing acid upon them. The
complainant Ritu is aged about 23 years and due to the act of the convict
Suraj, she had received burn injuries on her face, shoulders and upper
portion of the chest. She also stated in the court that her marriage was
settled and the engagement ceremony was to be done in October 2009 just
three months after the incident, but due to the injuries which she received in
the incident, her would be inlaws refused to hold the engagement
ceremony and the marriage proposal thus fell out due to the burn injuries
received by her. She has also stated that even after the incident, the convict
had threatened them with a knife.
6. The convict stated that he was injured by the complainant side
and he had simply picked up the bottle and threw the same towards them.
However, this was against the evidence which has come on the record in
the statement of PW5 Premwati who had stated that when she started
running due to fear, the convict came behind her and threw acid on her.
7. Thus, the act of the convict clearly shows that he was very much
conscious of his action and threw acid upon Sobha Rani and Ritu initially
without any just excuse.
8. Due to his act, his niece Ritu and sisterinlaw Sobha Rani
sustained 15% burn injuries and even the marriage proposal of Ritu fell
through. While awarding the sentence, not only the mitigating and
aggravating circumstance qua the convict are to be seen but the sufferings
of the victims are also to be taken into account. The offence U/s 326 IPC is
SC No. 309/09 3/18
State vs. Suraj
punishable with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment which can
extend upto 10 years. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the
case and the submissions made by the Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor and the
Ld. Counsel for convict, I award the following sentence to the convict:
The convict is sentenced to five years rigorous
imprisonment and further sentenced to pay a fine of
Rs. 10,000/ and in default to undergo simple
imprisonment for another five months for the offence
U/s 326 IPC. The benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C shall
be extended to him as per the law.
9. Copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given to the
convict free of cost. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open court (AJAY KUMAR KUHAR)
Dated: 19.02.2011 Addl. Sessions Judge02: South East
Saket Court: New Delhi
SC No. 309/09 4/18
State vs. Suraj
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AJAY KUMAR KUHAR
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE02:SOUTH EAST
SAKET COURT: NEW DELHI
IN RE: Sessions Case No. 309/09
FIR No. 277/09
PS H.N. Din
U/s 307 IPC
State Vs. Suraj, S/o Sh. Kasa Ram,
R/o H.No. 221, Near Qureshi Masjid,
Basti Hazrat Nizamuddin, New Delhi.
Date of institution : 14.10.2009
Date when arguments were heard : 07.02.2011
Date of Judgment : 17.02.2011
JUDGMENT
In brief, the prosecution case is as under: The incident took place on 04.07.2009 at about 6.30 pm when the accused, residing in House No. 221, Near Qureshi Masjid, Basti Hazrat Nizamuddin, came to the house of the complainant Ritu at House No. 219, Near Qureshi Masjid, Basti Hazrat Nizamuddin and started quarreling with Smt. Sobha Rani, mother of the complainant. He went inside his house and SC No. 309/09 5/18 State vs. Suraj brought a bottle filled of acid and threw the same on Smt. Sobha Rani as well as on the complainant Ritu. The accused also threw acid on Premwati who reside in House No. 220, Near Qureshi Masjid, H.N. Din and on Thakur Singh, younger brother of the complainant. The injured were taken to the hospital. The information regarding the incident was received in the police station which was noted vide DD No. 56B. ASI Narender Singh was assigned the inquiry. He reached the spot and met one Rohit and some other person who had apprehended the accused who was in the injured condition. It was told to the IO that the public persons had beaten the accused Suraj. The IO visited the hospital where he found complainant Ritu, Smt. Sobha Rani, Thakur Singh and Smt. Premwati admitted in the hospital in the burn ward. IO recorded the statement of complainant Ritu and sent the rukka for registration of the case for the offence U/s 325 IPC. After the opinion with regard to the injuries was obtained, the Section 307 IPC was added in FIR. During the investigation, the IO prepared the site plan Ex. PW10/B, seized the burn clothes vide memo Ex. PW6/A and also seized the empty plastic cane vide memo Ex. PW10/C. The accused was arrested and his disclosure statement was recorded. After completing the investigation, the charge sheet was filed in the court.
2. The accused was charged for the offence U/s 307 IPC. He pleaded not guilty and claimed the trial.
3. Thereafter, the prosecution examined the following witnesses to prove its case: SC No. 309/09 6/18 State vs. Suraj 3.1 PW1 is Kumari Ritu, who deposed that she works as a teacher at Divya Chhaya Trust, an NGO at T7, Basti Hazrat Nizamuddin. She further deposed that on 07.04.2009, she was present in her house alongwith the mother when at about 6.30 pm, the accused Suraj came there and started abusing her mother and when her mother raised objection, the accused threatened to deface them. The accused went inside the house and brought a bottle filled with acid and threw the same on her mother. Her aunt namely Smt. Premwati and brother Thakur Singh also came to the spot and accused also threw acid on Premwati and Thakur Singh. She further deposed that the accused had thrown the acid on her as well which caused burn injury on her right side face and on both the shoulders extended up to elbows. It may be noted that the court has observed during the examination of this witness that there were burn marks visible on the face of the witness as well as the shoulders. The witness was showing the marks on the upper chest as well but considering the modesty of a woman, she was not allowed to do so. She further deposed that her father was called on the telephone. He came to the spot and took her to the hospital. She further deposed that the police had come to the hospital and recorded her statement vide Ex. PW1/A. 3.2 PW2 is Thakur Singh, who also received burn injury. He deposed that the accused had thrown acid on her sister and mother and, thereafter, ran away from the spot and when he reached there, his sister SC No. 309/09 7/18 State vs. Suraj grappled with him as a result some acid also fell on him. He further deposed that his father was informed on the telephone and he came to the spot and took the injured to the hospital.
3.3 PW3 is Rohit, who deposed that on the date of incident, he was studying at his home in House No. 220, Near Qureshi Masjid, H.N. Din. When he heard the noise and came outside to see that his mother was shouting that accused Suraj has thrown acid on her. He also noticed that the acid has also been thrown on his aunt namely Sobha Rani and his sister. He further deposed that the accused who was present on the spot was apprehended with the help of the persons present in the locality. 3.4 PW4 is Smt. Sobha Rani, who deposed that the accused came to the spot and started quarreling with her. He started abusing her, her daughter Ritu and son Thakur Singh and when she questioned why he was abusing them, he said that he would finish them and then went inside his house, came out with a bottle in his hand filled with acid and threw the acid on her, her daughter, her son and the sisterinlaw Premwati. This witness has also shown the burn injury on her body. She also had burn injuries on both her hands as well as on the chest, on the lower part of the body and the back. She further deposed that she was taken to the hospital by her husband Tek Chand.
3.5 PW5 is Smt. Premwati. She also supports the statement of other witnesses and deposed that on 04.07.2009 at about 6.30 pm, she was standing at the door of her house. When she heard the noise of a quarrel, SC No. 309/09 8/18 State vs. Suraj she came out and saw the accused quarreling with Smt. Sobha Rani, Ritu and Thakur Singh. She went to pacify them but in the meantime, accused Suraj went inside his house and brought a bottle filled with acid and threw the same on Smt. Sobha Rani, Ritu and Thakur Singh. She further deposed that as she started running due to fear, the accused came behind her and threw acid on her as a result she received burn injury on her back.
3.6 PW6 is Tek Chand. He is the father of the complainant Ritu and husband of the injured Smt. Sobha Rani, who had taken the injured to the hospital.
3.7 PW7 is HC Umesh Kumar, who had registered the FIR on the basis of rukka sent by ASI Narender Singh vide Ex. PW7/A. 3.8 PW8 is Dr. Monisha, Sr. Resident, Safdarjung Hospital, who had medically examined all the injured persons. She has proved the MLC of the injured Sobha Rani, Rita, Premwati and Thakur Singh as Ex. PW8/A, Ex. PW8/B, Ex. PW8/C and Ex. PW8/D respectively. It was deposed by Dr. Monisha that the injuries were acid burn injuries and nature of injuries was opined as "dangerous".
3.9 PW9 is Constable Aneesh Ahmed, who joined the investigation of the present case with ASI Narender Singh and in his presence, the accused was arrested by the IO vide the arrest memo Ex. PW9/A and personal search memo Ex. PW9/B. SC No. 309/09 9/18 State vs. Suraj 3.10 PW10 is ASI Narender Singh, the Investigating Officer of the case. He deposed that on receipt of the call, he had reached the spot i.e House No. 219/220, Near Qureshi Masjid, Hazrat Nizamuddin at about 7 pm where he came to know that the injured have already gone to Safdarjung Hospital. He found the accused person on the spot who was apprehended by the public persons. He left Constable Aneesh Ahmed on the spot and he alongwith HC B.D. Sriniwas reached Safdarjung Hospital where he found the injured Ritu, Premwati, Sobha Rani and Thakur Singh admitted and he recorded the statement of complainant Ritu and sent the rukka Ex. PW10/A for registration of the case. He further proved the site plan prepared by him vide Ex. PW10/B and seizure memo of the burn clothes vide Ex. PW6/A and the empty bottle lying on the spot vide Ex. PW10/C. He further deposed that initially the case was registered for the offence U/s 325 IPC but after taking the opinion of the doctor with regard to the nature of injuries which were opined as dangerous, Section 307 IPC was added in the case and the accused was rearrested.
4. The incriminating evidence in the statement of the witnesses was explained to the accused when he was examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C. The accused has denied the case of the prosecution and taken the plea that on the day of incident, he had come to his house and had a quarrel with the injured. Smt. Sobha Rani who is bhabhi (sisterinlaw) of the accused brought a lathi and hit him on the head. She kept on hitting till he started SC No. 309/09 10/18 State vs. Suraj bleeding. Then he went outside but could not walk, so he came inside the house and went into the room, saw the injury in the mirror and noticed that he was bleeding profusely from the head. He saw a bottle lying in the bathroom which was containing the acid for cleaning the bathroom. He picked up the bottle and threw the same on them. Here, the version given by the accused shows that he is taking the plea of provocation claiming that he was first beaten by Smt. Sobha Rani and when he saw himself bleeding, he picked up the bottle of the acid and threw the same on the injured persons.
5. I have heard the arguments from the Ld. Addl. PP for state and the Ld. Counsel for accused and perused the evidence on the record carefully.
6. The Ld. Addl. PP for state has argued that the statement of the injured i.e PW1 Ritu, PW2 Thakur Singh, PW4 Smt. Sobha Rani and PW5 Smt. Premwati would show that the accused had intentionally committed the offence and without any provocation of any sort. The intention of the accused is clearly reflected from the words uttered by him to Smt. Sobha Rani and Ritu that he would deface them. The act which the accused had done of throwing acid on the injured persons was of such a nature as to invoke Section 307 IPC. He argued that the nature of injuries has been opined by doctor as dangerous. He argued that the accused has done the act with full consciousness and with the requisite intention. The statement of the witnesses have stood the test of the cross examination and SC No. 309/09 11/18 State vs. Suraj nothing adverse could come in the cross examination to discredit the statement of the witnesses. All the witnesses have deposed consistently and there is no reason to doubt their statements.
7. Per contra, the Ld. Defence Counsel submitted that infact the accused was beaten by the injured person and when he threatened them to inform the police, someone picked up the bottle and threw the same towards him which hit on the wall and the acid splashed on the injured persons. Ld. Counsel further argued that the act has been committed in a fit of anger on the spur of moment. He argued that there was no pre meditation and the accused never harboured any intention to cause death or such injury as was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The Ld. Defence Counsel argued that infact accused was first beaten by the injured Smt. Sobha Rani with lathi causing injury on his head and he was also being abused badly who infuriated the accused and he went inside the room, found a bottle filled with acid and threw the same towards the injured persons.
8. The statement of PW1 Kumari Ritu, PW2 Thakur Singh, PW4 Smt. Sobha Rani and PW5 Smt. Premwati are consistent on the point that the accused had thrown acid upon them. There is no inherent inconsistency or contradictions in their statements with regard to the act of the accused. The contradictions which are noticed in the statement of these witnesses do not go to the root of the case. It was argued by the Defence Counsel that PW1 deposed that the accused threatened to deface her while PW4 Smt. SC No. 309/09 12/18 State vs. Suraj Sobha Rani deposed that the accused had threatened to finish them. It was further pointed out that PW1 Kumari Ritu deposed that her aunt Premwati, PW5 had reached the spot on hearing the noise while PW4 Smt. Sobha Rani deposed that Smt. Premwati was standing outside the gate of her house at the time when the accused had come and Smt. Premwati, PW5 deposed that she heard the noise of a quarrel and she came out from her house and intervened to pacify the accused and the injured persons. The Ld. Counsel also pointed out that the witness Thakur Singh, PW2 deposed that he received injury of acid burn when he came out after hearing the noise and her sister Ritu grappled with him while the other witnesses deposed that the accused had thrown acid on Thakur Singh as well. These contradictions are only peripheral in nature and do not go to the root of the case. The witnesses when depose in the court may differ in reproducing the sequence of events. As a result of this, some contradictions are natural and bound to occur. These contradictions can easily be ignored if the witnesses are consistent on the main incident. All the witnesses mentioned above corroborate each other and support the prosecution case that the accused had thrown acid on Smt. Sobha Rani (PW4) and Kumari Ritu (PW1). When Smt. Premwati (PW5) had intervened, she was also not spared. PW5 deposed categorically that the accused went inside his house and brought a bottle filled with acid and threw acid on Sobha Rani, Ritu and Thakur Singh. She further deposed that when she started running due to fear, the accused came behind her and threw acid on her as well and she SC No. 309/09 13/18 State vs. Suraj received injury on her back. The MLC of Smt. Premwati Ex. PW8/B would also show that she had received acid burn on her back.
9. PW4 Smt. Sobha Rani had deposed that the accused had thrown acid on her and she received burn injury on her body. She had shown her both hands at the time of her examination in the court which were still having scar of the burn injuries. She had also stated that she had received injuries on the chest and the lower part of the body and her back as well. Her MLC Ex. PW8/A would confirm this as it shows that the patient has received injuries over breast, upper back and arms.
10. PW1 Kumari Ritu had deposed that she had received burn injuries on her right side face and both the shoulders extended up to elbows and also on the front upper portion of her chest. Her MLC also confirm this statement of PW1.
11. PW2 Thakur Singh had deposed that when he came out from the house, he noticed that the acid was lying on the body of his mother Smt. Sobha Rani and sister Ritu, PW4 and PW1 respectively and her sister grappled with him as a result, acid also fell on him. The MLC of PW2 Thakur Singh would show that he had received burn injury only on the forearm of his right hand.
12. The statement of these witnesses would, thus, show that PW1 and PW4 were in the firing line of the accused on whom he had thrown the acid from the front side. What infact had infuriated the accused is best known to him but as per the prosecution case, he had a quarrel with Smt. SC No. 309/09 14/18 State vs. Suraj Sobha Rani and he was also under the influence of liquor. The act of the accused, therefore, stands proved from the statement of the witnesses. The accused, however, has taken a defence in the cross examination of the witnesses and also U/s 313 Cr.P.C that he was first beaten by Smt. Sobha Rani (PW4) with a lathi and he had started bleeding and when he threatened Smt. Sobha Rani that he will make a complaint to the police, someone from the family picked up the acid bottle and threw the same towards him which hit on the wall and acid splashed on them. This defence taken by the accused, however, does not inspire confidence. In his statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C, he however, taken a different stand and stated that she was beaten by Smt. Sobha Rani with a lathi in her hand, he started bleeding. First he went outside but was unable to walk, so came inside the house again when the injured started abusing him. Then he went inside his room and saw in the mirror that he was bleeding profusely from the head. He saw a bottle lying in the bathroom containing the acid. He picked up the bottle and threw the same on them. The Ld. Defence Counsel had argued that the accused had taken this step on a grave provocation from the injured. However, this defence of the accused is also not strong enough to discredit the statement of prosecution witnesses and there is no justified reason to disbelieve the witnesses of the prosecution. So, the prosecution has been successfully proving that the accused had thrown acid on PW1 Ritu, PW4 Smt. Sobha Rani and PW5 Smt. Premwati.
13. Having come to the conclusion about the factum of the accused SC No. 309/09 15/18 State vs. Suraj causing injury on the complainant and her mother as well as PW5 Smt. Premwati by throwing acid upon them, now it is to be seen as to what offence has been committed by him? He has been charged for the offence U/s 307 IPC. Section 307 IPC reads: "Attempt to murder - whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned."
14. In the case of Bappa vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 2004 SC 4119, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court: "It is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307 if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. It is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. Although the nature of injury actually caused may often give considerable assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be SC No. 309/09 16/18 State vs. Suraj deduced from other circumstances, and may even, in some cases, be ascertained without any reference at all to actual wounds. The section makes a distinction between the act of the accused and its result, if any. The court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the section. An attempt in order to be criminal need not be the penultimate act. It is sufficient in law, if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof."
15. Prior to this, in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Balram Bama Patil & Ors. AIR 1983 SC 305 also, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court: "It is not necessary that the injury actually caused to the victim of the assault should be sufficient under ordinary circumstances to cause the death of the person assaulted. What the court has to see is whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in this section. An attempt in order to be criminal need not be the penultimate act."
16. The offence under Sec. 307 IPC provides punishment for an SC No. 309/09 17/18 State vs. Suraj attempt to commit murder. Two necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under Sec. 307 IPC are; firstly an evil intention or the knowledge and secondly; commission of an act. It would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case whether the accused had 'intention' to cause death or the 'knowledge' in the circumstances that his act was going to cause death. The nature of the weapon used, the motive for commission of offence apart from the nature and size of the injury, the part of the body of the victim selected for causing injury, are some of the important factors which can be taken into consideration in coming to a finding whether Sec. 307 IPC can be invoked or not. Whether the accused had done the 'act' in question with the 'intention' to cause death or with the 'knowledge' that his act is likely to cause death, is a question of fact which can be gathered from the circumstances. There cannot be any direct proof of the state of mind of a person. The state of mind of a person can be read only from the surrounding circumstances and from the context in which the act has been done.
17. The prosecution, thus, had to prove that either the accused had the intention to kill the injured or he had the knowledge that his act was so imminently dangerous that it could result into death of the injured. So far as the question of intention to kill the injured is concerned, perhaps this intention was not harboured by the accused. He had exposed his mind when he threatened to deface complainant. His intention, therefore, was simply to cause harm bodily to complainant and other member of her SC No. 309/09 18/18 State vs. Suraj family. Now the crucial question is whether the accused in the present case had the intention to cause death of PW1 Ritu and PW5 Smt. Sobha Rani? The answer to this question has to be in the negative. PW1 has categorically deposed that the accused had threatened to deface her and her mother. PW4 Smt. Sobha Rani deposed that when the accused was abusing them, she questioned him and he said that he would abuse like this only and he would finish them. PW1 and PW4 are the witnesses who were face to face with the accused. Therefore, the variance in the statement as to what was stated by the accused at the time of incident, is a factor which cannot be ignored. The entire circumstances surrounding the case do not have even an iota to suggest that accused had the intention to kill the complainant and her mother. Therefore, the question now before the court is whether the evidence on the record and the circumstance of the case can attribute the "knowledge" to the accused that he has committed an act which was so "imminently dangerous" which could have resulted into the death of the injured.
18. An attempt to commit an offence is one of the stage in the commission of the offence. First, there is a preparation to commit an offence, then there is an attempt to commit the offence and lastly; if the attempt succeeds the offence is committed. If a person does an act with the "intention" to commit murder or does an act with the "knowledge" that his act is so imminently dangerous that it may cause death of the injured but despite the act being committed, the death does not result, in that case, a SC No. 309/09 19/18 State vs. Suraj person will be liable for the offence U/s 307 IPC. Therefore, if the act of the accused falls in any of the clauses of Section 300 IPC but his act fails to result into the death of the injured, he will be liable for the offence U/s 307 IPC.
19. If the act is committed with the "knowledge" of the imminent danger involved in such an act and the death results by such an act Section 300 fourthly IPC would be applicable. Section 300 fourthly IPC reads as under: "If the person committing act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death of such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid."
20. But if despite such an act being committed with the "knowledge" as mentioned in the provision, the death does not occur, then of course, the person would be liable for the offence U/s 307 IPC.
21. In the present case, since the injury has been caused by throwing the acid, the opinion of the doctor was very much important to ascertain whether the injury caused was so imminently dangerous that in all probabilities it could cause death. The prosecution has not brought any evidence on record to suggest that the injury caused was so imminently dangerous that in all probabilities it could have caused death. The MLC of the injured shows that Sobha Rani had received 15% acid burn and Ritu SC No. 309/09 20/18 State vs. Suraj received 10% acid burn while Premwati and Thakur Singh had received only 1% acid burn. So, the extent of the burn injury caused is not such as to cause death in all probabilities. Therefore, Section 307 IPC cannot be invoked in this case. The accused by his act has caused dangerous injuries on the person of the complainant and other persons by means of acid which is a heated substance and has the capacity to cause burn injuries. Thus, the Section 326 IPC would be attracted in the facts of the case. Section 326 IPC reads as under:
326. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means. Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance, or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with (imprisonment for life), or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
SC No. 309/09 21/18
22. Thus, considering the evidence which has come on the record against the accused, which unerringly points toward the guilt of the accused and by virtue of Section 222 (2) Cr.P.C, the accused is held guilty for the offence U/s 326 IPC and convicted accordingly.
Announced in open court (AJAY KUMAR KUHAR)
Dated: 17.02.2011 Addl. Sessions Judge02: South East
Saket Court: New Delhi
SC No. 309/09 22/18