The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; failure to establish mens rea led to acquittal.

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. 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 hus