IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Vibhu Bakhru, J.
Jagdish - Appellant
Versus
State (NCT Of Delhi) - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 283 of 2017
Decided On : 12-11-2020
IPC - Offences under Sections 326A and 326B - Summary of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 326A and 326B
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for committing the offences punishable under Sections 326A and 326B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for throwing acid on his wife and her sister-in-law, causing grievous hurt and simple injuries to them.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant guilty based on the testimonies of the victims, medical evidence, and consistent statements of witnesses. The court rejected the defense's contentions of lack of corroboration and inconsistencies in the testimonies.
Issues: The issues included the sufficiency of evidence to establish acid attack, credibility of witnesses, and fairness of trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the testimonies of the victims and medical evidence were sufficient to establish the acid attack. It also emphasized the reliability of the injured witness and rejected the defense's challenges to the trial's fairness.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the appellant's conviction for the offences under Sections 326A and 326B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
JUDGMENT
Vibhu Bakhru, J. - The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning a judgment dated 16.09.2016, passed by the Special Judge-2, NDPS Act (Central District), Tis Hazari Courts, whereby the appellant was convicted for committing the offences punishable under Sections 326A and 326B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter "IPC").
2. The appellant also seeks to challenge an order on sentence dated 17.09.2016, whereby he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years along with a fine of Rs. 10,000 for committing the offence punishable under Section 326A of the IPC and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month. The appellant was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years along with a fine of Rs. 10,000 for committing the offence punishable under Section 326B of the IPC and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month. Both sentences were directed to run concurrently.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 09.09.2014, at about 06:45 a.m., in front of Street no. 42, Beadon Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, the accused (the appellant herein) threw acid, which he was carrying in a bottle wrapped with newspaper, on his wife (Smt. Bimla). At the material time, she was accompanied by her sister-inlaw (bhabhi), who was carrying her minor son (Sunny) aged about three years, in her arms. The acid also fell on Sunny and he suffered acid burns. Smt. Bimla suffered grievous hurt, while Sunny suffered simple injuries. The offence was committed when the petitioner''s wife and her sister-in-law were returning from a public lavatory (sulabh sauchalaya).
4. Information regarding the injured Bimla who was admitted at Lady Hardinge Hospital with acid burn injuries (MLC No. 47598/14) and a child named Sunny who was admitted at Kalawati Saran Children''s Hospital (MLC No. 192/14) was received at PS Karol Bagh, at about 8.15 am, on 09.09.2014. The said information was entered as DD No. 8A. The same was marked to SI Naresh Kumar. He along with Ct. Anand Kumar reached Lady Hardinge Medical College and recorded the statement of the injured Bimla (Ex PW2/A). He sent the rukka through Ct. Anand to the police station on the basis of which the FIR in question (FIR no. 623/14, under Sections 326A and 326B of the IPC) was registered with PS Karol Bagh. According to the prosecution, the accused ran away after the incident. Efforts were made to locate him but he could not be found. He was arrested on 28.09.2015 by SI Rajpal when he was produced near Liquor Vend, Ravi Raj Chowk, Karol Bagh, by his father-in-law Sh. Cheeku and brother-in-law Sh. Praveen.
5. The accused was charged with offences punishable under Sections 326A and 326B of the IPC. He pleaded not guilty and the matter was set down for trial. During the course of the trial, the prosecution examined twelve witnesses. The defence did not lead any evidence.
Evidence
6. W/Si Suman, PS Karol Bagh, was examined as PW1. She stated that on 09.09.2014, she was working as a Duty Officer from 08:00 a.m. to 04:00 p.m. At about 08:15 a.m., she received telephonic information from Lady Hardinge Hospital regarding burn injuries suffered by a lady Bimla and a child who had been admitted to the hospital by her brother Praveen. She entered the said information as DD No. 8A (Ex PW1/X) and handed over a copy of the same to SI Naresh. At about 09:50 a.m., Ct. Anand came to PS K. Gate along with the original rukka. She got FIR No. 623/14 registered. PW1 was not cross-examined.
7. Smt. Bimla, the wife of the accused (the appellant), was examined as PW2 on 11.03.2016. She stated that she married Jagdish four years ago. She stated that her husband is a drug addict and would even consume beer etc. and would beat her. She could not recall the date of the incident, however, she stated that it was two years ago and at the time, she was residing at her paternal
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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.