IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
MUKUL MUDGAL,P.K.BHASIN
UDAI SINGH - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
CRL. APPEAL NO. 496 OF 2003
Decided On : 02-12-2008
Penal Code, 1860 Sections 300 & 302 - Death of the deceased had taken place after about two months of the incident - Cause of her death was secondary infection - Medical evidence to the effect that the cause of death of the deceased was shock and secondary infection due to the burn injuries - Death of the deceased was caused by the act of the accused in throwing acid on her body because of which 55% of her body had got burnt - Clear case of culpable homicide Conviction modified from Section 302 IPC to Section 304(1) IPC.
P.K.BHASIN, J:
In this appeal the appellant assails his conviction and the sentences awarded to him by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi for his having killed a young widow, who had spurned his advances for marriage after the death of her husband, by throwing acid on her and also for having caused acid burn injuries on her twelve years old daughter.
.2. The facts leading to the trial and conviction of the appellant(hereinafter to be referred as “the accused”) may first be noticed. The deceased Smt. Aruna was a widow whose husband had died about two years before the present occurrence which took place on the night of 17th May, 2000. After the death of her husband she was living with her two children in HMD Colony, Shahdara, Delhi and the accused started visiting her house and became close to her and her children. Taking advantage of that closeness the accused started asking the deceased that they should live as husband and wife but she rejected that proposal. The accused, however, instead of dropping the idea of marrying her from his mind threatened her that he would deform her face and body with acid to such an extent that she would not be liked by anyone. On the night of 17th May, 2000 at about 10 p.m. the deceased was lying with her twelve years old daughter Sonia(PW-1) in the balcony of her house on the first floor. At that time the accused came to the balcony scaling the wall near the staircase and poured acid on her and Sonia from a bottle which he was having in his hand. The deceased and her daughter felt burning sensation on their bodies and so they raised alarm upon which the accused threw the bottle in the room near the balcony and ran away. It was also the case of the prosecution that Aruna had tried to save herself by trying to prevent the accused from throwing acid on her and in that process some acid had fallen on the accused also. Both the mother and daughter poured water on their bodies and came down weeping and shrieking with pain. On hearing their shrieks their relative Tejpal(PW-12), living in the neighbourhood, rushed to their house and took both of them to GTB Hospital in Shahadara. The deceased when examined by the doctor(PW-3) at the GTB Hospital was found to be conscious and oriented. At that time her blood pressure was 112/76 and pulse rate was 92. On being asked by the doctor examining her she informed the doctor that somebody had thrown acid on her half an hour back. The doctor made a note of that in the MLC Ex.PW-3/A. The doctor noticed burn injuries on different parts of the body of Aruna covering approximately 55% area of her body which included whole of her face, part of the back, chest, both arms, part of forearms and part of left thigh. Similarly, acid burns to the extent of approximately 20% were noticed on the body of Sonia by the doctor who examined her.
.3. On getting the information regarding the admission of the two injured in the hospital PW-16 Sub-Inspector Sanjay reached GTB Hospital. Aruna was declared fit by the doctor for making her statement and so PW-16 recorded her statement Ex. PW-16/A. Smt. Aruna stated that her husband had died two years ago and she alongwith her daughter Sonia and son Pankaj was residing in HMD Colony, Delhi. After the death of her husband, Udai Singh(the accused) started visiting her residence and became close to her family. A week ago he had started asking her to live with him as husband and wife but she had told him that she was to marry her children and in case she would live with him she and her children would have no respect in society and nobody would marry her children. Udai Singh on her refusal to live with him told her that he liked her too much and in case she would not agree to his proposal he would deform her face and body to such an extent that she would not be liked by anyone. She further stated that during that night at about 10 p.m. she alongwith her daughter Sonia was lying on the floor of the balcony
Babulal v. State of M.P. (2003) 12 SCC 490
Bunnilal Chaudhary v. State of Bihar AIR 2006 SC 2531
Dharam Pal & ors. v. State of Delhi 114 (2004) DLT 245: 2004 (77) DRJ 289
Dharam Pal v. State 141 (2007) DLT 478: 2007 (96) DRJ 420[DB]
Harjinder Singh @ Jinda v. Delhi Admn. AIR 1968 SC 867
Inder Singh Bagga Singh v. State of Pepsu AIR 1955 SC 439
Jayaraj v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1976 SC 1519
Kishore Singh and Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1977 SC 2267
Laxman v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2002 SC 2973
Muthu Kutty v. State (2005) 9 SCC 113
Narain Singh v. State of Haryana AIR 2004 SC 1616
Prakash Chandra Pathak v. State of U.P. AIR 1960 SC 195
Ramesh Singh @ Photti v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2004) 11 SCC 305
Ravi v. State of T.N. 2004 (10) SCC 776
Shaik Nagoor v. State of A.P. rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP.
Sudershan Kumar v. State 1970(6) DLT 566 Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab 1958 SCR 1495
Willie (William) Slaney v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1956 SC 116
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.