Back
2013 Supreme(Cal) 833
High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
S. AHLUWALIA, J.
Md. Manirul Islam
Versus
The State of West Bengal
CRA. No. 75 of 2009 (Appellate Side)
Decided On : 24-12-2013
For the Appearing Parties:Tapas Kumar Chatterjee, Sanjoy Ghosh, Anjan Datta, Amartya Ghosh, Advocates.
The testimony of an injured witness, particularly in the absence of major contradictions or discrepancies, is accorded special status in law and is unlikely to falsely implicate someone other than the actual assailant.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - CONVICTION UNDER SECTIONS 307/326/34 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE - ACID THROWING INCIDENT - APPELLANT CHALLENGES CONVICTION - COURT ANALYZES PROSECUTION EVIDENCE AND FINDS IT RELIABLE - VICTIM'S TESTIMONY ACCORDED SPECIAL STATUS - APPELLANT'S INVOLVEMENT DOUBTFUL DUE TO ACCOMPANYING VICTIM TO HOSPITAL - SENTENCE REDUCED FOR ONE APPELLANT.
Fact of the Case:
Appellant Nazrul Islam, along with two others, was convicted for throwing acid on the victim, Anoara Bibi, due to her refusal of his illicit advances. The victim sustained severe injuries, particularly to her face. The Trial Court found all three accused guilty and sentenced them to seven years of rigorous imprisonment for each of the offenses under Sections 307 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code, along with fines.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found the prosecution evidence to be reliable, with the victim's testimony accorded special status due to her presence during the occurrence and unlikelihood of shielding the actual assailant. However, the Court raised doubts about the involvement of one of the appellants, Manirul Islam, based on his presence at the hospital with the victim and her husband after the incident.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution evidence, particularly the victim's testimony, was reliable in establishing the guilt of the appellants. 2. Whether the involvement of the appellant Manirul Islam in the acid-throwing incident was sufficiently proven.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the victim's testimony, as an injured witness, carried significant weight and was unlikely to falsely implicate someone other than the actual assailant. 2. The Court found that the appellant Manirul Islam's presence at the hospital with the victim and her husband after the incident raised doubts about his direct involvement in the acid-throwing occurrence.
Final Decision: The Court upheld the conviction of all three appellants but reduced the sentence of Manirul Islam to the period already undergone, considering his different circumstances. The other two appellants were directed to serve out their full sentences as awarded by the Trial Court.
Sudip Ahluwalia, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 6th Court at Barasat North 24- Parganas on 14.01.2009 in ST Case No. 2(7)2008/Sessions Case No. 1(7)2007 of his Court.
2. The background of the case is that one Md. Hakim Biswas lodged an F.I.R at Deganga P.S within district North 24 Parganas to the effect that his wife Mst. Anoara Bibi had gone to reside in her father’s house at village Gobindapur. During her stay there, the Appellant Nazrul Islam, a neighbour of her father’s village made some illicit proposal to her, which she refused to accept. Out of grudge on account of such refusal, the said Nazrul Islam accompanied by the other two convicts namely Md. Manirul Islam and Md. Anar Ali, also of village Gobindapur, on 25.08.06 at about 9 p.m. with the common object of teaching her a lesson, threw acid on her face, when she was lying on a cot in the verandah. While she started to clamour, the inmates of the house of the complainant reached there and took her to Barasat Sadar Hospital for treatment. Because of such throwing of acid upon the victim Anoara, she sustained severe injuries and the right portion of her face was severely burnt.
3. On the basis of the above allegations, Deganga P.S. case No. 134/06 dated 28.08.06 u/s 326/307/34 of I.P.C. was started against the aforesaid three accused persons Nazrul Islam. Md. Manirul Islam and Md. Anar Ali.
4. All those three accused were thereafter tried and convicted by the Trial Court of the Offences under Sections 326/307/34 of the IPC. They were sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for Seven (7) years each for the offences under Sections 326 and 307 of the IPC separately, apart from being directed to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and 5,000/- each for the aforesaid offences, in default of which payments they were sentenced to suffer further Rigorous Imprisonment for One (1) year and Six (6) months respectively.
5. This Court has heard the extensive submissions of Ld. Advocates for the Appellants, particularly the Appellant No. 2 ‘Md. Monirul Islam’. Ld. Advocate for the said Appellant has drawn attention of this Court to no less than Eleven (11) aspects in the matter, which according to him, constitute major contradictions and infirmities in the Prosecution case, and consequently the conviction of his client, who was allegedly implicated falsely in the case just to harass him unnecessarily, is therefore liable to be quashed.
6. Before proceeding to consider the merits in such contentions, this Court is inclined to first take note of those Eleven (11) aspects mentioned in the Written Arguments filed behalf of the Appellant No. 2 on 29.11.2013, which are reproduced as follows:-
"(I) As per statement of the P.W-1, Nazrul Islam, the Appellant No. 1 alone used to give ugly proposal to his wife Anoara Bibi (Victim). But Anoara Bibi (as PW-2) implicated three Appellants.
(II) The FIR was lodged on 28.08.2006 by the P.W-1 but the incident occurred on 25.08.2006 - The Delay in filing the FIR is not properly explained.
(III) It appears that they (the three Appellants) threw acid with help of a coconut shell and said acid sprinkled on the face of the P.W-2 (victim). But how can it be possible to throw one coconut shell by 3 Appellants?
(IV) According to the statement of the husband of the Victim (PW-1) the Appellant No. 2, Manirul Islam had accompanied him, when he went to the hospital to admit the victim.
(V) That the incident had occurred on 25.08.2006 at 9 P.M. But there is contradiction that the PW-2(victim) stated in her deposition that there was electricity in that village. In view of that she saw the accused persons. On the other hand others deposed that there was moon light and DW-2 also stated that there was no electricity in the said village.
(VI) There is no eye witness in the said incident including the victim herself.
(VII) As per statement of PW-1 (husband of the victim) that when he went there (t
