SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Rajiv Sharma and Sharad Sharma, JJ.
State of Uttarakhand —Appellant
versus
Ajam —Respondent
Government Appeal No.12 of 2011
Decided on 12.6.2017

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant: Mr. Amit Bhatt, A.G.A.
For the Respondent:Mr. Mohd. Umar, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
State Government is liable to include victims of acid attacks in category of physically challenged persons for the purpose of reservation in public employment and also to make separate scheme for their rehabilitation.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 307—Uttarakhand Poisons (Possession and Sale) Rules, 2015—Rules 14, 16, 17, 18 and 19—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 378—Attempt to murder—Acid attack by stalker—Appeal against acquittal—Accused had preplanned to throw acid on victim knowing fully well that acid would cause serious injuries to her which could also be life threatening—In the case under Section 307 I.P.C., it is not injuries which matters but it is intention/knowledge to kill—There is a disfigurement to body of acid attacks victim—It reduces chances of their marriage and to get public employment—Accused had been stalking victim and forcibly asked her to stop when she refused he poured acid upon her causing severe burn injuries—Scars shall remain on her body and mind forever, reminding her of that fateful day—Impugned judgment and order set aside—Accused convicted under Section 307 of I.P.C. (Paras 22, 27, 30 and 60)

       (B) Constitution of India—Article 21—Right to life—Expression “life” in Article 21 does not merely connote animal existence or a continued drudgery through life but has a much wider meaning—It is responsibility of State to take protective as well as remedial measures to ensure that lives of citizens are protected—In all cases of bride burning and acid throwing, it is responsibility of Government hospitals as well as Private Hospitals to provide immediate medical aid to victim—Incidents of acid burning/throwing cause physical, mental and psychological torture—Victim of acid burns is stigmatized and traumatized—Every person has right to life including right to live free from any kind of mental, physical and psychological torture, be it stalking, sexual harassment, burning etc. (Paras 34, 35, 38, 58 and 59)

       Result: Government Appeal allowed.

       

JUDGMENT

Rajiv Sharma, J.—The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 05.08.2010, rendered by learned Sessions Judge, Roorkee, District Haridwar in Sessions Trial No. 72 of 2010, whereby the respondent-accused, who was tried with and charged for the offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C., was acquitted.

2. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that PW1 Kunwar Singh submitted a written report to the Police Station, Roorkee on 18.12.2009, mentioning therein, that his daughter Km. Kavita was coming back to her house on 18.12.2009 at 2.30 P.M. after taking tuitions. When she reached near the house of Shehnawaz, Advocate, she noticed that the accused/respondent was chasing her. He was carrying a mug in his hand, which contained acid. The accused ran behind the daughter of the complainant by proclaiming that he will kill her and while saying so, he threw acid on PW2 Kavita. The face of Kavita was burned. Thereafter, the accused ran away from the spot. The victim was taken to the Joint Hospital, Roorkee for treatment. The matter was investigated and challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities.

3. The prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses in support of its case. The statement of the accused was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. He denied the case of the prosecution. The trial court acquitted the accused vide the impugned judgment dated 05.08.2010. Hence, the State has come up in appeal before this Court.

4. Mr. Amit Bhatt, learned A.G.A. for the State /appellant has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused.

5. Mr. Mohd. Umar, learned counsel for the respondent/accused, has supported the judgment dated 05.08.2010.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment very carefully.

7. PW1 Kunwar Singh, father of victim, has testified that he works as a Fitter in the Laboratory. He was present in his office on 18.12.2009. His daughter informed him telephonically that somebody has poured acid on her. He reached his home. He noticed burn injuries on the body of his daughter. He inquired from his daughter about the manner in which the incident took place. She told that the accused started chasing her and he was insisting her to stop, however, she did not stop. The accused was carrying a box (container) in his hand. When his daughter reached near the house of Shehnawaz, Advocate, accused proclaimed that since she is not interested in listening him, he would ruin her life. Thereafter, he poured acid on her body. She received severe burn injuries. The accused left the spot after hurling abuses on her. He (PW-1) father of the victim, reported the matter to the S.H.O., Police Station Roorkee. The accused was acquainted with the family members of the victim. The Police has taken into possession the burnt hair, sweater, jeans and shirt of the victim.

8. PW1 Kunwar Singh, in his cross examination, has admitted that he was not the eyewitness of the incident. He received the information from his daughter on telephone between 2.30 P.M. to 3.00 P.M. He reached his house with his colleagues. He took his daughter to the hospital. His daughter was admitted for a night in the hospital. Thereafter, the matter was reported to the Police. The complaint was lodged by his friend.

9. PW2 Kavita, the victim, has categorically testified in her examination-in-chief that when she was coming back from the tuitions on 18.12.2009, at about 2.30 P.M., the accused, whom she recognized in the Court, was standing in the street. He was carrying a box (container) in his hand. He started chasing her. The accused, at an isolated place, near the house of Shahnawaz, Advocate poured acid on her. She tried to save herself. The acid had fallen on her body. She felt burning sensation. Her clothes were also burnt. The accused was shouting that if she did not belong to him, he would ruin her life. She shouted. Thereafter, the accused r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top