Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 688 (JHR)

Awadhesh Ray @ Babua Pathak v. State Of Jharkhand

2006-06-12

DHANANJAY PRASAD SINGH

body2006
JUDGMENT D.P. Singh, J. Page 2637 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.11.2000 and 29.11.2000 passed in Sessions Trial No. 102 of 1998, whereby and whereunder the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad held the appellant guilty under Section 324 IPC and convicted and sentenced him to undergo RI for three years. 2. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that the informant Sangeeta Kumari, PW 15, daughter of Jawahar Lal Tiwari, PW 12 was standing at about 9.30 AM at Page 2638 the bus stop and talking with her friend Sarita Kumari, PW 1 in the morning of 11.11.1997 in Loyabad, district Dhanbad, while she saw the appellant coming towards her on a scooter. It is further stated that the appellant stopped the vehicle near the informant and took out a small dibba and poured the acid on her head and face. The informant getting acid burn injury started crying. According to the informant the appellant stated that he has poured the acid on her face because she did not agree to his demands. The informant was taken to hospital by PW 3, Md. Aslam with the help of a scooter driver immediately, where she was admitted. The reason behind pouring of acid was that the appellant was in possession of photo of the informant and he was blackmailing her and when she did not accede to his demands, she has been subjected to this incidence. The statement of the informant was recorded by Loyabad police in the hospital at about 3 PM. On the basis of which Loyabad P.S.case No. 121/1997 was registered under Sections 324, 326, 307 IPC. The police investigated the case and finally submitted chargesheet against the appellant under the aforesaid sections. 3. The defence taken by the appellant was that there was love affair between the informant and the appellant and after his marriage, this false case has been registered to implicate him. It is further submitted that there was some disputes between the family of the informant and the appellant. The trial court has charged the appellant for the offences mentioned above on 12.6.1998 and examined witnesses of the prosecution and the defence. The trial court finally found and held the appellant guilty under Section 324 IPC only and sentenced him to serve RI for three years. 4. The trial court has charged the appellant for the offences mentioned above on 12.6.1998 and examined witnesses of the prosecution and the defence. The trial court finally found and held the appellant guilty under Section 324 IPC only and sentenced him to serve RI for three years. 4. The present appeal has been filed on the ground that the learned trial court has committed errors on record and did not consider the contradictions available in the evidence of the witnesses. It is further asserted that the appellant was the Director of a Coaching Institute of which the father of the informant was the Secretary. According to the counsel for the appellant, there was a dispute between the family of the appellant and the informant regarding management of the institute for which this false case has been lodged. It is also submitted that the informant has got illegal relation with one Niraj and she has got loose character. According to this memo of appeal, there was no eye witness of the occurrence and the appellant has already remained in custody from November, 1997 till the date of judgment November, 2000 and suffered sufficiently and as such the appeal may be allowed. 5. I have considered the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant along with materials on record. It appears that Sangeeta Kumari examined as PW 15, has been cross examined at length on several dates. She has denied that she has got any relationship with Niraj said to be her second lover. She has supported her fard beyan before the police in court. She has proved the letter written by the appellant as Ext.4 in the writing of the appellant in which he has threatened her. In cross-examination this witness has admitted that she could not say the exact time of her statement recorded by the police. She has denied any letter written by her to the appellant on being shown to her. Though she admitted that certain photo graphs were taken along with her family members by one Ram Naresh Paswan. She specifically denied that she used to write letter to the appellant, vide para 41. She has specifically denied that acid was thrown upon her by Niraj. 6. PW 1 Sarita Kumari, PW 2 Sakrani Devi, PW 5 Ramesh Chauhan and PW 9 Jagarnath Sigh have been declared hostile by the prosecution. She specifically denied that she used to write letter to the appellant, vide para 41. She has specifically denied that acid was thrown upon her by Niraj. 6. PW 1 Sarita Kumari, PW 2 Sakrani Devi, PW 5 Ramesh Chauhan and PW 9 Jagarnath Sigh have been declared hostile by the prosecution. PW 4 Babu Gupta is a witness on the seizure list along with PW 7, Fuljensia Xess. PW 8 Surendra Tiwari is also a witness on the seizure list along with PW 10, Santosh Kumar Gupta. 7. Learned Counsel for the appellant criticized the evidence of PW 3 on the basis of statement of PW 11, Durga Prasad, father of PW 1. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, PW 11 contradicts the statements of PW 3 regarding how the victim was taken to hospital. However, the evidence of PWs 17 and 18, Dr. Anurag Kishore Sahay and Dr. Bikas Kumar Sinha has come on record that Sangeeta was brought to Loyabad Regional hospital on 11.11.1997 with acid burnt injuries over left side of her eye, neck and chest. She was advised to be referred to the specialists at plastic surgery general ward on 14 th January, 1997 where PW 17 has examined and treated her. He has further proved Ext.5 and 5/1, two photographs of the victim having 20% acid burnt injury on her face and her left chest. This shows that victim Sangeeta suffered acid burnt injury on 11.11.1997 and was treated at Loyabad and thereafter in Special ward of Bokaro General Hospital. The evidence of PW 16, I.O. of the case, further confirms that an incident of acid throwing took place and the prosecution version was supported before the I.O. by PW 1 Sarita, vide para 6 of her evidence. He has seized the articles from the place of occurrence and sent them to forensic laboratory. 8. As against this, DW 1, the appellant, has denied the offence. According to him, acid was thrown by one Niraj, the second lover of the informant. He has further produced 12 letters said to be written by the informant to him and denied to write any letter to the informant. It is further asserted that the false case has been instituted to harass him because he has married with DW 2, Asha Devi in July, 1997. DW 2 has also supported her husband. He has further produced 12 letters said to be written by the informant to him and denied to write any letter to the informant. It is further asserted that the false case has been instituted to harass him because he has married with DW 2, Asha Devi in July, 1997. DW 2 has also supported her husband. DW 3 Naresh Kumar is the photographer, who has taken the photographs of the informant. However, his evidences do not show that Sangeeta has got no contact with the appellant rather it confirms that there was a relationship between the informant and the appellant. The incident that acid was thrown on the informant has been supported by the evidence of the informant and PWs 3, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17 and 18. I do not find any apparent reason on the record to accept the suggestion of the appellant that he has been implicated falsely in this case by the informant and her family members and the acid was not thrown by the appellant on the informant. The evidence on record supports the prosecution story and proved it beyond doubts that acid was thrown by appellant on the informant on 11.11.1997. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has already served the sentence during trial itself and he has already been released from the custody. 9. Having considered the facts and circumstances, mentioned above, I find that the present appeal has got no merit, which is accordingly dismissed.