Uttarakhand High Court
Mahavir Prasad Bahuguna vs State Of Uttarakhand on 27 July, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 UTR 394
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 362 of 2019
Mahavir Prasad Bahuguna ....Revisionist
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ....Respondent
Mr. Raj Kumar Singh, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, DAG for the State.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Instant revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 22.11.2018, passed in Criminal Case No. 2455 of 2003, State Vs. Mahavir Prasad Bahuguna, by the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun (for short "the case"). By this judgment and order, the revisionist has been convicted under Sections 324, 354 and 506 IPC and sentenced as hereunder:-
"1. Under Section 324 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of Rs.10,000/-.
2. Under Section 354 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs.5,000/-.
3. Under Section 506 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.
There are directions for further imprisonment, in case default of payment of fine is made".
This judgment and order dated 22.11.2018 was challenged by the revisionist in Criminal Appeal No. 192 of 2018, Mahavir Prasad Bahuguna Vs. State of Uttarakhand, in the court of Additional Sessions Judge 7th, Dehradun (for short "the appeal"). On 25.04.2019, the appeal was dismissed. This judgement and order is also impugned.
2. Prosecution case as necessary to decide this revision briefly stated is that the victim was running a shop in Mussoorie 2 market. She had old acquaintance with the revisionist. On 31.07.2003, at 11:00 in the morning, when the victim was coming to market, on the way, the revisionist followed her on his motorcycle, held her forcefully and threw some inflammable substance on her. A report was lodged on 01.08.2003 at Police Station Mussoorie. In the report, the victim has stated that in fact, revisionist would threaten her every now and then. On the date of incident, the victim got herself medically examined. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted under Sections 324, 354, 504 and 506 IPC against the revisionist and proceedings of the case were instituted. On 12.04.2005, charges were framed under Sections 324, 354, 504 and 506 IPC, to which, the revisionist denied and claimed trial. Prosecution examined only three witnesses. The revisionist was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to him, for political reasons, he has been falsely implicated. By the impugned judgment and order, learned trial court convicted the revisionist, as stated hereinbefore and his conviction was upheld in the appeal. Aggrieved, the revision.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing and perused the record.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist would argue that the revision is a 66 years old man. Injuries are superficial on the victim. Therefore, the revisionist may be released on probation or may be sentenced to the term of sentence which he has already undergone. Learned counsel has also raised following points in his arguments:-
i. The clothes worn by the victim were not sent for forensic examination;
ii. Medical Officer, who examined the victim has not been examined at trial.
iii. The substance thrown on the victim was never recovered by the Investigating Officer.3
iv. The FIR is after thought because according to it, the victim consulted other persons.
v. In FIR it is not stated that sister of the victim was with her when the substance was thrown on her.
5. On behalf of the State, it is argued that it is a very heinous offence and it is not a case in which the revisionist may be given benefit of the provision of probation. It is argued that it is a case of acid attack.
6. Although, at this stage, learned counsel for the revisionist would object to it saying that the word "acid" has not been used in the FIR.
7. This is a revision. The scope of revision is quite limited to the extent of examining the correctness, legality and propriety of any judgment. It is not a jurisdiction parallel to appeal. Evidence cannot be examined like any appeal. It cannot be re-appreciated. Factual aspects cannot be gone into, unless it is shown that irrelevant material is considered or material evidence is ignored or there is any perversity. To that extent only, the Court proceeds to examine the case.
8. All the arguments which have been raised on behalf of the revisionist are mainly related to factual aspects or appreciation of evidence except the quantum of sentence.
9. Factual aspects cannot be looked into in the revision. In fact, PW1 the victim has categorically stated about the incident in her statement. She was categorical in her cross examination that she went to police station on the same day to lodge the report, but the police turned her back saying that it would defame her and thereafter, she went for a medical examination.
410. The next day, she called someone, asked someone and got the report lodged. It does not make the FIR afterthought. This is a delay, but it is well explained.
11. The arguments with regard to medical examination report has no force because formal proof of the medical examination report has been dispensed with by the revisionist himself. And according to this report, which is on record, the injuries on the victim were caused due to some chemical corrosive substance. In the FIR, the victim says that the revisionist threw upon her some inflammable substances. What she says is that she sustained injuries and Chuba (a warm ankle length robe that is bound around the waist by a long Sash) was given to police. It was also damaged. She has proved it as well. The substance which the revisionist threw upon the victim caused damage to the clothes worn by the victim and her skin as well. In FIR, it is stated as inflammable substance and doctor says it that injuries were caused by the chemical corrosive substance. It is true that the word "acid" is not used in the FIR, but it does not make any difference. The argument that the substance which was thrown upon the victim was not recovered has no force at all because the substance was a liquid thrown upon the victim. There was no occasion to recover any such substance. It had done its job. It had damaged the clothes and the skin of the victim.
12. In the FIR, itself which is proved as Ex. A1 by the victim PW1. In the last line it is stated that at the time of incident, the sister of the victim was with her. She has been examined as PW2, she has proved the case. Even if the clothes worn by the victim were not sent for forensic examination it has no effect on the merits of the case.
13. The question of sentence has been raised. The evidence reveals that the revisionist had acquaintance with the victim. The victim is an aged lady. At the time of her examination, she was 43 5 years of age. It means that on the date of incident, she was 39 years of age. She had grown up children. According to her, the revisionist would follow her. He proposed her to marry, to which she denied. Consequently, she had to face the trauma. The act of the revisionist was gruesome. Fortunately, the victim sustained injuries on her lower limbs. Had the substance thrown at her reached her face, it would have caused devastating effects on the body and soul of the victim. This is not a case, which may require any reduction in sentence. There is no question of extending the benefit of probation to the revisionist. Therefore, the revision has no substance and it deserves to be dismissed.
14. The revision is dismissed accordingly.
15. A copy of the judgement be sent to the Court below alongwith the original record.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 27.07.2020 Jitendra