Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 361 (TRI)

Usha Rani Debnath v. State of Tripura

2022-09-07

ARINDAM LODH, T.AMARNATH GOUD

body2022
JUDGMENT T. Amarnath Goud, J. - This is an appeal under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 29.06.2016 passed by the Additional Session Judge, West Tripura in Session Trial (Type-1) 01/2015 whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 326-A of the IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and further sentenced to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- in default stipulation and to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. The genesis of the prosecution is rooted in the written complaint filed by one Smt. Pusparani Debnath [PW-1] alleging that her son namely Babul Debnath [the victim] has married one Smt. Usha Rani Debnath of local are Laxamandhepa as per Hindu Rites and Customs. After their marriage two sons were born. For the last one year, the said daughter-in-law of her namely Smr. Usha Rani Debnath was reluctant in discharging any household works in her matrimonial home and she also did not take care of her minor child. Due to that reason, some conjugal disputes arose between the accused and her husband and also quarrel with her mother-in-law. On 30.09.2014 at about 5:00 hours when Babul Debnath was lying in bed suddenly accused Usha Rani Das three some acid on the face and different part of the body of Babul Debnath with an intention to kill him. Subsequently, the victim reached to the house of his maternal uncle. Thereafter, the brother of PW-1 took the victim to G.B.P. Hospital at Agartala for treatment. PW-1 has stated that on the date of occurrence she was at Agartala in the matrimonial home of her daughter and after getting the information about the incident, she rushed to G.B.P. hospital, Agartala and came to learn about the whole incident. 3. On the basis of the said information, the police registered Melaghar P.S. Case No. 2014 MLG081 dated 04.10.2014 under Section 326A of the IPC against the accused. The Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class on receipt of the charge-sheet framed the charge under Section 326A of the IPC to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution adduced as many as 12(twelve) witnesses. The Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class on receipt of the charge-sheet framed the charge under Section 326A of the IPC to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution adduced as many as 12(twelve) witnesses. After recording the prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. During that examination, the appellant reiterated his plea of innocence, by stating that the incriminating materials were manipulated and fabricated to persecute him. No evidence was adduced in order to defend the appellant. As such, after appreciating the prosecution evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial Judge convicted the appellant under Section 326-A of the IPC and in default to make payment of fine money and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. If fine money is realized from the convict, the entire fine money shall be paid to the victim Sri Babul Debnath to meet the medical expenses of his treatment. It has been also observed by the trial court that the convict being in custody for 87 days in total during the course of investigation, the said period of detention already suffered by the convict shall be set off against the term of imprisonment imposed upon her [the convict] by the court below as per provision of Section 428 of the Cr.P.C. Being aggrieved, as stated, the present appeal has been preferred. 5. Mr. R.G. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the evidence which has been placed before the learned trial court by the prosecution are not sufficient at all to come to a conclusion that the appellant has committed the offence. Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel has submitted that it was a family dispute between the appellant and her husband who is the victim in the present case. Moreover, the informant [PW-1] of the incident who is the mother-in-law of the appellant was not present at the place of occurrence and made the complaint upon hearing PW-4 [Anil Debnath], the brother of the informant. Furthermore, both the victim and the complainant have admitted during cross-examination that out of the family dispute, the appellant herein has earlier filed complaint against her husband i.e. the victim and her mother-in-law i.e. the complainant under Section 498A of the IPC. Mr. Furthermore, both the victim and the complainant have admitted during cross-examination that out of the family dispute, the appellant herein has earlier filed complaint against her husband i.e. the victim and her mother-in-law i.e. the complainant under Section 498A of the IPC. Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel has further submitted that if the seized material objects may be consider, it may be observed that the police has seized the wearing apparel (lungi) of the victim which was being worn by the victim at the time of incident. 6. Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel has submitted that after the examination it reveals that the wearing apparel (lungi) has proved to be negative regarding presence of any corrosive liquid. Thus, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has prayed before this court to allow the appeal and acquitting the appellant from the charge leveled against her as because the prosecution has failed to prove their case. It was a case of accident which occurred in the rubber garden and later on shifted on the wife out of personal grievance. As per order dated, the court also summoned the victim husband who has been produced today by learned Addl. P.P. We have asked him about the incidence and he has expressed that he do not want his wife to be prosecuted and punished further. He has also submitted that there is no one to his family to look after him and his family. So, he also urged before this court for releasing his wife, i.e. the convict appellant. 7. Mr. S. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the state in response to the submission of Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the case is fully based on reliable witnesses which have been corroborated by several witnesses. Learned Addl. P.P. has stressed on the complaint made by the mother-in-law who has made this FIR getting all the information narrated by his son, the victim. Later on, the whole incident is corroborated by the deposition of PW-2, the victim husband himself. Further, the deposition of PW-1, the complainant and PW-2, the victim was corroborated by PW-4, Anil Debnath, the maternal uncle of victim. 8. Finally, learned Addl. P.P. stressed on the medical evidences as deposed by PW-9, Dr. Abhijit Roy followed by scientific evidences given by PW-11, Sri Suman Kumar Chakraborty, Deputy Director, State SFSL who has examined the seized articles [Exbt. 8. Finally, learned Addl. P.P. stressed on the medical evidences as deposed by PW-9, Dr. Abhijit Roy followed by scientific evidences given by PW-11, Sri Suman Kumar Chakraborty, Deputy Director, State SFSL who has examined the seized articles [Exbt. A] found positive for presence of formic acid which can cause injury to human being. 9. Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has finally submitted that the case of the prosecution is that a jug full of formic acid if thrown or flashed upon the face of a person in the early morning on his bed suddenly some portion of such acid need to be flashed over the wearing apparel and in and around the person. But surprisingly, from the chemical examination [Exbt. 7], the TSFSL Report presence of such acidic substance has been found negative and thus, the case of the prosecution is in question. 10. For purpose of appreciating the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties, it appears apposite to us to make a meaningful survey of the following witnesses: 11. Smt. Pusparani Debnath [PW-1] has stated that her son namely Babul Debnath [the victim] has married one Smt. Usha Rani Debnath of local are Laxamandhepa as per Hindu Rites and Customs. After their marriage two sons were born. For the last one year, the said daughter-in-law of her namely Smt. Usha Rani Debnath was reluctant in discharging any household works in her matrimonial home and she also did not take care of her minor child. Due to that reason, some conjugal disputes arose between the accused and her husband and also quarrel with her mother-in-law. On 30.09.2014 at about 5:00 hours when Babul Debnath was lying in bed suddenly accused Usha Rani Das three some acid on the face and different part of the body of Babul Debnath with an intention to kill him. Subsequently, the victim reached to the house of his maternal uncle. Thereafter, the brother of PW-1 took the victim to G.B.P. Hospital at Agartala for treatment. PW-1 has stated that on the date of occurrence she was at Agartala in the matrimonial home of her daughter and after getting the information about the incident, she rushed to G.B.P. hospital, Agartala and came to learn about the whole incident. Thereafter, the brother of PW-1 took the victim to G.B.P. Hospital at Agartala for treatment. PW-1 has stated that on the date of occurrence she was at Agartala in the matrimonial home of her daughter and after getting the information about the incident, she rushed to G.B.P. hospital, Agartala and came to learn about the whole incident. PW-1 has uttered that when she asked Sri Babul Debnath he told that his wife Smt. Usha Rani Debnath threw acid upon his son when he was sleeping in the bed room. In her cross examination she has stated that she was not present at the place of occurrence and made the complaint upon hearing PW-4 [Anil Debnath], the brother of the informant. She has stated in her cross-examination that the daughter-in-law Smt. Usha Rani Debnath files some criminal cases against her son and herself under Section 498A of the IPC. 12. PW-2, Sri Babul Debnath the victim has stated that Smt. PW-1 is his mother and the accused Smt. Usha Rani Debnath is his wife. He has categorically stated that incident was occurred on 30th day of September, 2014. It was a day of Mahasasthi of Durga Puja. At about 4/5 days ahead of 30th day of September, 2014, he had quarreled with his wife on financial matters. After that quarrel, his wife did not talk with him before the occurrence. His wife was reluctant to discharge the household works and she was leaving his house frequently to visit her parent home at Laxmandhepa. On 30.09.2014 at 05:30 a.m. when he was preparing to leave his bed all on a sudden his wife appeared there with a jug full of acid and threw it on his face as a result of which he sustained severe burnt injuries on his face, chest and ears and he lost his vision. He then came out from his bed room and sprayed water on his whole face and then somehow managed to run to the house of his maternal uncle, PW-4 and he has narrated the whole story and also request to shift him in the GBP Hospital, Agartala. His mother and other relatives rushed at GBP Hospital to see him. He has narrated the incident to his mother and other relatives when they visited the said Hospital. He was admitted for 29 days in the said GBP Hospital, Agartala. His mother and other relatives rushed at GBP Hospital to see him. He has narrated the incident to his mother and other relatives when they visited the said Hospital. He was admitted for 29 days in the said GBP Hospital, Agartala. He has stated in the cross examination that he used to discharge his profession works in a rubber plantation and he know how to prepare the rubber sheet and for that use of acid is mandatory for the preparation of rubber sheet. He has denied all the allegations leveled against her that on the day of incident he sustained acid burnt injuries while he was preparing the rubber sheet. He has also denied the allegations that his mother used to torture his wife everytime. He has also denied that his father-in-law help his mother financially for the purpose of treatment. In the witness volunteers the medical attended expressed their unhappiness due to presence of his wife at GBP Hospital, Agartala. It is not a fact that his mother lodged a false FIR against his wife making consultation with him. He has rejected the allegations that he has threatened his wife that he would marry second time keeping his first wife inside the custody. He has agreed that few days ago before the incident his wife visited his residence at Jumerdhepa. The police has examined him and recorded his statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. He did not tell to the investigating officer that he had lost his total vision of his eye and also he did not tell about his ear that he has not hearing capability. 13. PW-4, Sri Anil Debnath he stated that the informant is his elder sister and the victim is his nephew. He has stated the whole incident as narrated by PW-1[the information]. He has stated that in the course of investigation one police officer obtained his signature on a seizure list marked as Exbt. 2/2 upon identification by the witness. He cannot say what articles were seized by the police on the strength of that seizure list. He has denied all the allegations leveled against him the cross-examination. Moreover, he has stated in the cross-examination that victim Babul Debnath is situated at a distance of one km. from his residence. The police has obtained his signature on the seizure list at his residence. He has denied all the allegations leveled against him the cross-examination. Moreover, he has stated in the cross-examination that victim Babul Debnath is situated at a distance of one km. from his residence. The police has obtained his signature on the seizure list at his residence. The police did not obtain signature of Sri Jiban Chakraborty on that seizure list in his presence. 14. PW-8, Sri Paritosh Das who was the Inspector on 04.10.2014 was posted at Melaghar police station as Officer-in-Charge of that police station. On that day, he endorsed the case docket of Melaghar P.S. case No. 2014 MLG 081 under Section 326(A) of the IPC to SI Uttam Paul for its investigation. Subsequently, during the course of investigation, on 07.12.2014 SI Uttam Paul handed over the case docket to him since he was supposed to leave Melaghar police station on account of his official training. Accordingly, he took up the investigation. After perusal of the case docket, it was found that all the witnesses were examined by the previous investigating police officer and the investigation was pending for collection of injury report and SFSL report. So he made an attempt to collect the injury report of the victim, Sri Babul Debnath from GBP Hospital, Agartala. The medical report of the victim itself clears the matter that the victim had sustained acid burnt injuries. So he did not make further attempt to collect SFSL report, he submitted the SR to the SDBP, Sonamura Sub-Division and after obtaining permission he has submitted the charge-sheet against the FIR named accused Smt. Usha Rani Debnath as the prima facie charge was well established against her for committing an offence punishable under Section 326(A) of the IPC. Later on, on receipt of a report from the SFSL, Narisinghar he has forwarded the same before the court of Law with a prayer to take the same with the charge-sheet earlier submitted by him. In the cross-examination he has denied that he investigation done by the previous I/O was completely false for which he has submitted the charge-sheet basing on some incorrect statement and document. He has also denied that he has submitted one baseless charge-sheet against the accused. 15. PW-9, Dr. Abhijit Roy, the Assistant Professor Department of Ophthalmology on 30.09.2014 was posted at AGMC & GBP Hospital. He has also denied that he has submitted one baseless charge-sheet against the accused. 15. PW-9, Dr. Abhijit Roy, the Assistant Professor Department of Ophthalmology on 30.09.2014 was posted at AGMC & GBP Hospital. He has stated that on that day one patient namely Babul Debnath aged about 34 years was brought at 9.18 am by Amal Kumar Debnath, brother-in-law of the victim of Indranagar, East Agartala, West Tripura. That patient was transferred to eye department from causality block at 9.30 am on 30.09.2014. At the time of admission the patient was complained of pain, foreign body sensation both eyes and swelling on both lips and nose and burn over whole chest following acid burn at 5.00 am by his wife on 30.09.2014. AT the time of admission the patient was alert and conscious and cooperative and oriented to time place and person. Eye lips were odematous with abrasion marks at lateral border. There was matting of lashes with discharge. Conjunctiva was congested with circumcilliary congestion on both eyes. Cornea both eyes shows abrasion over whole cornea, hazy with descendents folds over right eye only. Anterior chamber showed flare. Iris of both eyes were odematous, pupil of both eyes were circular, central, mid dilated, light reflexes were diminished. Tip of nose was abrated with crusts inside nostril. Skin over ears were abraded. Lids were sowed up. There were burn marks over whole chest. Visual acuity at the time of admission was finger counting half meter right eye and finger counting one meter left eye. Visual acuity at the time of discharge was finger counting two meter right eye and 3/60 left eye. It was grievous injury and type of the injury was chemical burn [acid burn]. The wounds were fresh. The patient was manages with antibiotics both orally and topically, NSAIDS, steroid ointment and multi vitamins. Then patients was transferred to surgery department at 6.35 p.m. of 30.09.2014. The patient took treatment at surgery department from 30.09.2014 and after that again transferred back to eye department on 18.10.2014. The patient was discharged on request by the patient party on 26.10.2014 from eye department. Regarding burn injuries of face and chest opinion may be taken from surgery department and regarding nose injuries opinion may be taken from ENT department. The patient took treatment at surgery department from 30.09.2014 and after that again transferred back to eye department on 18.10.2014. The patient was discharged on request by the patient party on 26.10.2014 from eye department. Regarding burn injuries of face and chest opinion may be taken from surgery department and regarding nose injuries opinion may be taken from ENT department. Subsequently, he has prepared one injury report and handed it over to the Investigating police officer on receipt of a requisition for furnishing injury report of Sri Babul Debnath in connection with Melaghar P.S. Case No. 81/2014. This is the said report which bears his signature with official seal and one identification by the witness the entire report has been marked as Exbt. 6. The injuries sustained by Mr. Babul Debnath were progressive in nature and there is a chance to become totally blind if proper care is not taken at an early stage. In the cross-examination he has stated that it is not a fact that the injury of history narrated by the patient to him were not correct. The injuries may also cause accidently. 16. PW-11, Sri Suman Kumar Chakraborty, who was posted as Deputy Director in State Forensic Science Laboratory at Narsingarh on 07.11.2014 has narrated that on that day their office received one sealed packet from SDPO, Sonamura containing exhibits in connection with Melaghar P.S. Case No. 81/2014 which was endorsed to him by their Director for examination and opinion. Inside the sealed packet, there were two exhibits marked as Exbt. A and Exbt. B. Exbt. A was one white colour plastic drum with inner lid having inscription on it 'PURA NARMADA, FORMIC ACID', 85% found empty and another Exbt marked as Exhibit-B found one[sic] marron/white/orange printed lungi, subsequently marked as CHEM/97/14(A) & (B). The exhibits were examined from 18.12.2014 to 22.12.2014 and on examination in Exbt. A the observed Ph-1-2 and positive for the presence of formic acid which can cause injury to human being. Exbt. B was negative for the presence of any corrosive liquid. The remnants of the exhibits has been returned separately under sealed cover. These are the reports in two pages prepared by him bearing his signatures and forwarded by their Director and on identification by the witnesses the entire reports is marked as Exbt. 7 series. Exbt. B was negative for the presence of any corrosive liquid. The remnants of the exhibits has been returned separately under sealed cover. These are the reports in two pages prepared by him bearing his signatures and forwarded by their Director and on identification by the witnesses the entire reports is marked as Exbt. 7 series. In the cross examination he has stated that it is not a fact that he has given his opinion on Exbt. A basing on the label affixed on the surface of the white colour plastic drum. 17. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as for the prosecution and also considering the submissions of the victim husband, this court is of the opinion that the case of the prosecution suffers from appropriate evidences and after perusal of the forensic report we are of the considered opinion that there are some failure and laches by the prosecution to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts and thus according to us the appeal needs be allowed. The prosecution failed in proving the motive against the accused wife and also the knowledge that the mug containing acid and she has poured on the victim husband was intentional. This court feels that there is no mens rea since the prosecution has not established that acid was there in the mug but this court feels that there could be water in the mug which she poured on the husband in order to wake him up from his sleep in the morning. Accordingly, the benefit of doubt is extended in favour of the wife and also the appeal is allowed and she has been acquitted from the charge. In the result, the appeal stands allowed. LCRs be returned.