Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. I have carefully gone through the entire materials on record. There is of-course small discrepancy in the evidence of PW.1 regarding who poured the poisonous substance and who held her. However, it is seen from the cross-examination of PW.1 or PW.2 for that matter, that the accused has not disputed the incident as such nor the presence of PW.1 on the date of the incident and the place of incident as propounded by the prosecution. The evidence of PWs.2, 3 and 4 clearly corroborates the fact that the victim- PW.1 was present in the house of accused Nos.1 and 2 on the date and the time of the incident. The motive to the said crime is also established from the complaint of PW.1 marked as Ex.P1 and the same is corroborated from the evidence of PWs.1 to 4. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has proved that the incident of the nature as described in the complaint has infact happened and some foreign substance has been put thrust into the mouth of PW.1 on the background of PW.1 demanding share in the property, since accused No.1 had forcibly kept her and was having illicit connection with her. However, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the medical certificate issued by PW.11 does not indicate that the substance recovered from the mouth of PW.1 was subjected to chemical examination nor FSL report is brought forward by the prosecution to hold that the poisonous substance was infact thrust into the mouth of PW.1. Under the circumstances, it cannot be held that accused had intended to cause harm to PW.1 or cause such injury as is likely to cause the death of PW.1. In the absence of any clear finding that the substance was poisonous, an offence under Section 307 of IPC is not clearly attracted in this case. However, since accused have exercised force on PW.1 and have attempted to cause harm to her body by pouring some substance into her mouth, they have criminally assaulted her. The said aspect is further corroborated by the evidence of PW.11- Dr.Veereshkumar who has stated that when he examined PW.1, he has found smell of some organo phosphorous substance. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the accused/appellants are liable to be found guilty of an offence of causing assault or criminal force with an intention to dishonour PW.1 which is punishable under Section 355 of IPC.

15. So far as the offence under Section 341 of IPC is concerned, the evidence of PW.4 clearly supports the evidence of PW.1- the victim herself and therefore, the trial Court has rightly convicted the accused for the offence under Section 341 of IPC.

16. However, so far as the sentence for the offence under Section 355 of IPC is concerned, it is seen that the offence under Section 355 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to two years or fine. It is seen that accused/appellants were in custody from 03.12.2009 upto 05.02.2010 for a period of two months. The victim needs to be compensated for the illegal act committed by the accused. Hence, compensation amount which has been ordered by the trial Court cannot be disturbed while adequate sentence need to be imposed for the act committed by the accused. Accordingly, the following order is passed:

ORDER

i) The appeal is allowed in part.

     ii)    The order of conviction for the offence
            under Section 341 r/w Section 34 of IPC
            and   sentence      there   for   is   hereby
            confirmed.

iii) The order of conviction for the offence under Section 307 r/w Section 34 of IPC is hereby set aside and in its place, accused are convicted for the offence under Section 355 of IPC.

iv) The accused are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months and to pay fine of `25,000/- each for the offence under Section 355 of IPC.

v) The accused are given set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. for the period already undergone by them as under trial prisoners.

vi) An amount of `50,000/- shall be paid to PW.1 as compensation under Section 357 of Cr.P.C.