Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1478 (BOM)

Arvind Ashok Sonar v. State of Maharashtra

2013-07-31

MRIDULA BHATKAR, V.K.TAHILRAMANI

body2013
JUDGMENT : MRIDULA BIIA TKAR, J. The appellant-original accused has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 21.03.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur in Sessions Case No. 17 of 2008. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. 2. The incident has taken place on 21.11.2007 at Jyotirling Apartment, Kolhapur. Victim girl Sujata was residing at Jyotirling Apartment with her parents and sibling. At the relevant time, she was holding a degree of Engineering and was serving in Pune. Her marriage was settled and was to take place on 03.12.2007 with one Koustabh Tamhankar from Sangli. 2.1 The appellant used to distribute newspapers in the area where Sujata was residing. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant was in love with Sujata but it was one sided love. The appellant had expressed his love to Sujata in last 3-4 years prior to the incident, however, there was no response from Sujata. She and her parents warned him not to cross his limits and not to harass her. They have also approached the police about said harassment. 2.2. On 21.11.2007 at around 07.00 to 07.30 p.m. Sujata went to the medical shop and returned with medicines on her two wheeler. She parked it and was climbing the staircases to go to her home. At that time, the appellant came from the upstairs with a bottle in his hand and disclosed to Sujata that as she was not responding to his love; he threatened to kin her. The appellant removed the cap of the bottle and poured some corrosive chemical on her face and fled away. Sujata sustained injuries. She started shouting. Her family members and neighbours came running there. She disclosed the incident to her mother and other persons. Her mother poured water on her face immediately and was taken to the dispensary of Dr. Sahastrabuddhe. She was given preliminary treatment and then she was admitted in the City Hospital. 2.3 The mother of Sujata lodged a complaint with the police. Same was treated as FIR (Exh.22). PW 12 API Gujar of Shahupuri Police Station registered the offence against the appellant at C.R. No. 284 of 2007 of Shahupuri Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. 2.3 The mother of Sujata lodged a complaint with the police. Same was treated as FIR (Exh.22). PW 12 API Gujar of Shahupuri Police Station registered the offence against the appellant at C.R. No. 284 of 2007 of Shahupuri Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. Police thereafter went to the spot. They drew the spot panchnama (Exh.16). Clothes of Sujata were seized under panchnama (Exh.14). Both the panchnamas were drawn on the same night of 21.11.2007. Police recorded statements of the neighbours and the persons from the vicinity. 2.4 PW10 Dr. Archana Pawar treated the victim girl Sujata on the same day. The appellant was arrested on the next day i.e on 22.11.2007. Arrest panchnama (Exh.24) was drawn in presence of pancha PW 9 Ekane. After completion of the investigation, police submitted the charge sheet in the Court of Magistrate. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions. 3. The appellant was charged for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and was convicted and sentenced for the same, hence, this appeal. 4. This is a full proof case against the appellant. PW 3 victim girl Sujata stood in the witness box and has narrated that the appellant was after her since 3-4 years prior to the incident. He has expressed his love towards her, however, she was not interested in him and she has warned him not to be after her. She has also informed about the same to her father and her mother PW 8 Neha. They have also warned the appellant. PW 1 Sujata has stated that her marriage was fixed with one Koustabh Tamhankar from Sangli and it was to be solemnized on 03.12.2007. On 21.11.2007 at around 07.30 p.m., she went to the medical shop and returned with medicines on her two wheeler. She parked it and was climbing the staircases to go to her home. At that time, the appellant came from the upstairs with a bottle in his hand and disclosed to Sujata that as she was not responding to his love; he threatened to kill her. The appellant removed the cap of the bottle and poured some corrosive chemical on her face and fled away. Sujata sustained injuries. She started shouting. Her mother and other two ladies i.e PW 4 Meenakshi and PW 5 Pravina came running on the spot. 5. The appellant removed the cap of the bottle and poured some corrosive chemical on her face and fled away. Sujata sustained injuries. She started shouting. Her mother and other two ladies i.e PW 4 Meenakshi and PW 5 Pravina came running on the spot. 5. The evidence of PW 1 Sujata is fully corroborated with the evidence of her mother PW 8 Neha. PW 8 Neha has also stated about the previous conduct of the appellant i.e expression of one sided love of the appellant for Sujata and also about the incident. PW 4 Meenakshi and PW 5 Pravina were chitchatting outside the building in the evening at around 07.30 p.m. They saw Sujata parking her vehicle and climbing the staircases. Immediately, they heard shouts of Sujata. They immediately rushed towards Sujata. Sujata disclosed them that the appellant had poured chemical on her face. 6. The prosecution has examined one more witness on this point i.e PW 7 Dhairyashil. He is a child witness. He was 8/9 years old at the time of the incident. His evidence was recorded within 1 & 1/2 year of the incident. He has stated that on that evening, he heard shouts of Sujata and he saw the appellant running away from the spot. 7. Nothing much is elicited in the cross-examination of theses witnesses to disbelieve their testimony. All the witnesses stood firm to their evidence and narrated all the facts consistently. 8. Mr. Patil, learned Advocate for the appellant has tried to assail the evidence of these witnesses mainly on the point that if the case of the prosecution that there was harassment by the appellant since 3-4 years of the incident, then why the police complaint was not lodged by the parents of Sujata or by Sujata. He further submitted that there is no specific reference of bottle in the FIR (Exh.22). Mr. Patil further submitted that in the evidence of PW 8 Neha, the mother of Sujata, there is no mention that PW 4 Meenakshi and PW 5 Pravina were present and they came to the spot. He submitted that it is difficult to believe that PW 4 Meenakshi and PW 5 Pravina were present on the spot as the said fact is not mentioned by PW 8 Neha. 9. The submissions of Mr. Patil on these two points did not hold any substance. He submitted that it is difficult to believe that PW 4 Meenakshi and PW 5 Pravina were present on the spot as the said fact is not mentioned by PW 8 Neha. 9. The submissions of Mr. Patil on these two points did not hold any substance. PW 8 Neha in her FIR has referred the container of chemical as 'Barani' i.e a big bottle. This cannot be considered as any significant inconsistency. PW 8 Neha on hearing cry of Sujata came running to the spot and was attending her daughter who had sustained injuries. Naturally, while giving the FIR, it was not expected that she should give the names of all the persons who were present on the spot. Thus, the absence of their names in the FIR cannot falsify the presence of PW 4 Meenakshi and PW 5 Pravina immediately after the incident. Presence of PW 4 Meenakshi and PW 5 Pravina appears to be very natural as these ladies were chitchatting outside the building at the time of the incident. 10. The prosecution has examined PW 6 Chandrajeet. He was running a shop at Kasal Lane, Kolhapur and he used to sell acid and chemicals required by the goldsmith. He has deposed that he knew the appellant and he used to purchase acid from his shop. Two days prior to the incident, the appellant came to his shop and had purchased acid. Mr. Patil submitted that the witness has admitted in cross-examination that he did not have documentary evidence, to show that the appellant has come to his shop any time to purchase acid. He has also admitted that he did not make entry in the register of chemical and acid and the evidence of this witness, therefore, cannot be believed. 11. The evidence of PW 6 Chandrajeet cannot be doubted. PW 6 Chandrajeet has stated that the appellant had purchased acid of Rs.4/- from his shop. Important thing is that he knew the appellant and therefore, he deposed that the appellant had purchased acid two days prior to the incident. Assuming the evidence of this witness is not considered, yet in absence of the evidence of this witness, the prosecution has cogent, consistent and reliable evidence to prove its case. 12. PW 10 Dr. Important thing is that he knew the appellant and therefore, he deposed that the appellant had purchased acid two days prior to the incident. Assuming the evidence of this witness is not considered, yet in absence of the evidence of this witness, the prosecution has cogent, consistent and reliable evidence to prove its case. 12. PW 10 Dr. Archana Pawar has examined the victim on 21.11.2007 in the evening at about 07.30 p.m. Sujata was brought to the hospital by her parents and there was history of assault. Sujata had burn injuries over her face. She has deposed that those injuries were chemical burn injuries and these injuries were grievous in nature. PW 10 Dr. Archana found the burns over her face, right upper limb and neck. She analyzed the burns as 5% on face, 2% on neck and 3% on right upper limb. Thus, the total percentage of burn injuries was 10%. Sujata was discharged from the hospital on 28.11.2007. PW 10 Dr. Archana has deposed that on 13.01.2008, she was readmitted in the hospital for skin grafting of the burn injuries. She gave certificate to that effect which is at Exh.27. She also produced medical papers which are at Exh.29 colly. She deposed that further Sujata was taking treatment till March 2008 as OPD patient. The evidence of PW 10 Dr. Archana was recorded on 16.03.2009 and at that time, she has stated that Sujata would require one more surgical operation for reconstruction of nostril. She has also stated that due to pouring of water, the chemical was diluted and therefore, severity was reduced. Nothing much has been brought on record in cross-examination of this witness. 13. The appellant was known to the victim, her family members, PW 4 Meenakshi, PW 5 Pravinaand PW 7 minor child - Dhairyashil. There was a history of expression of one sided love. On that point, the prosecution has relied on the evidence of PW 11 Head Constable Patil who has stated that in 2005, the father of Sujata had approached the police and complained about the appellant that he had expressed such feelings about Sujata by publishing one greeting. There was a history of expression of one sided love. On that point, the prosecution has relied on the evidence of PW 11 Head Constable Patil who has stated that in 2005, the father of Sujata had approached the police and complained about the appellant that he had expressed such feelings about Sujata by publishing one greeting. Thought PW 11 Head Constable Patil could not produce any documentary evidence to that effect, we have no hesitation to accept the oral evidence of victim girl PW 1 Sujata, PW 8 Neha - the mother of Sujata and also this witness on the point that the appellant was in love with Sujata and as Sujata was not responding to his love, he got annoyed and he poured chemical on her face with intention to kill and disfigure her. 14. The prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. On the point of quantum, Mr. Patil has submitted that the appellant has not intended to kill Sujata as he was in love with her and the injuries caused to her were not that grievous or serious which would have been resulted to her death. We have carefully examined the evidence of PW 10 Dr. Archana. PW 10 Dr. Archana in her evidence did not state that these injuries would have resulted in death of Sujata if she would not have given immediate treatment. PW 1 Sujata has stated in her evidence that the appellant was in love with Sujata and as she was not ready to respond his love, the appellant threatened to kill her and then he removed the cap of the bottle and poured it on her face and ran away. Thus, there was a threat given by the appellant to kill Sujata. However, to invoke Section 307 of IPC, intention is required that the act would cause death. It is to be supported mainly by the nature of injury caused to the .victim. The injuries caused to the victim are to be such that if they are not treated, would have caused death. In the present case, chemical was poured on the face of Sujata. As per the evidence of PW 10 Dr. Archana, the percentage of burns was 5% on face, 2% on neck and 3% on right upper limb that is in all 10% burn injuries on the portion of her body. PW 10 Dr. In the present case, chemical was poured on the face of Sujata. As per the evidence of PW 10 Dr. Archana, the percentage of burns was 5% on face, 2% on neck and 3% on right upper limb that is in all 10% burn injuries on the portion of her body. PW 10 Dr. Archana has not opined that these injuries would have resulted into death if they are not treated. Hence, we bring down the charge to the lesser degree i.e. from Section 307 to Section 326 of IPC. Section 326 is about voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means. The word 'grievous hurt' is defined in Section 320 of IPC. The relevant portion of this Section is - Sixthly i.e permanent disfiguration of the head or face. This case is directly falling under Section 320 - Grievous hurt - Sixthly permanent disfiguration of the head or face by pouring chemical. Thus, the offence is proved under Section 326 of IPC. 15. Mr. Patil has prayed for leniency. It is submitted that the appellant is the only earning member of the family and has to shoulder responsibility of one daughter. 16. We are not inclined to reduce the sentence though we have reduced the offence to the lesser degree i.e. from Section 307 to Section 326 of IPC. Considering the gravity of the offence and the nature of the offence, we maintain the sentence imposed on the appellant which is a maximum punishment under Section 326 of the IPC, hence, the appeal is dismissed. 17. Office to communicate this order to the concerned prison Authorities and to the appellant who is in jail. Appeal dismissed.