Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. In this nation where great tradition and culture exists, where right from ancient times, it is stated l= iwT;ars ukjh jears r= nsor A (where woman is given respect, only in that place God resides) yet another brutal inhuman attack with acid on a young girl of hardly 20 years of age, has given rise to the present appeals.

2. Being aggrieved by the judgment and sentence dated 6.5.2005 holding the accused guilty of the offence under Section 326 of IPC, and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 5 years and 3 months with a fine, the accused has filed Criminal Appeal No. 1239/2004, whereas the State aggrieved by acquittal of the accused for offence under Section 307 of IPC, has filed Criminal Appeal 1065/2004. The State has also filed Criminal Appeal No. 1066/2004 under Section 377 of Cr.P.C, praying for enhancement of the sentence under Section 326 of IPC. on the ground that the sentence is inadequate. Since we have to consider same evidence and same judgment to decide these three appeals, all are taken up together for consideration and being disposed of by this common judgment.

14. On the other hand the learned State Public Prosecutor argued in support of the prosecution case mainly relying upon the evidence of the victim P.W7 and independent evidence of other injured eyewitness P.W1, He also submitted that the Trial Court has rightly considered their evidence in proper perspective, so also the circumstantial evidence to hold that it is the accused and accused alone who threw sulphuric acid on PW7 Haseena in the morning of 24 - 4 - 1999 at about 8:25 a.m.

15. However it is submitted that the Trial Court committed an error in acquitting the accused for the offence under Section 307 of IPC and convicting him for a lesser offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC. In this regard it is contended that as the accused had the knowledge as well as the intention to commit murder of Haseena and in this regard has used a deadly corrosive material like sulphuric acid on her face and body, the Trial Court was in error in acquitting him for the said charge of attempt to murder. It is also submitted that even the punishment imposed namely R. I. for 5 years and odd for the offence under Section 326 of IPC, in the light of the grevious nature of injuries especially like losing both the eyesight, disintegration of entire face of a beautiful young girl, is very lenient one, As such, it is submitted that this part of the judgment namely acquittal under Section 307 of IPC and even if it is held that offence is under Section 326 of IPC, the lenient punishment requires reconsideration.

e) it must fall short of ultimate design.

It is argued that as the prosecution has failed to prove the intent of the accused to commit murder and since there is no evidence as to the main object of the accused to cause death of Haseena, the offence would not fall under Section 307 of IPC. Relying upon a judgment of Orissa High Court reported in A I R 1994 Cr.L.J.2245 it is submitted that that was also a case of acid throwing and the Court has rightly held that the offences under Section 326 of IPC and not under Section 307 of IPC. As such, even if it is held that the accused committed the offence, the conviction need not be altered from Section 326 of IPC to 307 of IPC. So far as sentence is concerned it is submitted on behalf of the accused that at the time of commission of the offence the accused was a young man and in fact had served imprisonment for a period of five years and three months during the trial which is an adequate sentence. It is also submitted that the accused has also deposited the entire fine of Rs. 3,20,000/-. Hence taking into consideration the mitigating factors that accused is a young person, has served substantive sentence and also the fact that he has got aged parents to look after and has a started his life afresh by obtaining a job with great difficulty after coming out of the jail, in the interest of justice, there is no need to enhance the sentence.

42. In Kulamani's case the learned single Judge of Orissa High Court while considering the facts and circumstances of that case had found that the accused in that case taking advantage of power failure and darkness threw acid indiscriminately on participants in a procession in the darkness and as such the intention on the part of those accused was only to cause injuries and not death.

43. However, facts and circumstance of the present case are different. In the present case, the accused after giving threat to Haseena, has made preparation for the crime by purchasing large quantity of sulphuric acid from the shop of PW.8 and then poured the same on PW 7. There is nothing to show contra that either he had no knowledge or intention. The consequence of pouring large quantity of sulphuric acid on the head is likely to cause death must be known to him or has to be inferred and as such in our view, the offence clearly falls under the category of attempt to murder punishable under Section 307 of IPC and not under Section 326 of IPC.