2019 Supreme(P&H) 1330

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Rajiv Sharma, Harinder Singh Sidhu, JJ.
Raja - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Haryana - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (D) No. 484 of 2017, 860 of 2017
Decided On : 28-05-2019

The increasing menace of acid attacks violates the basic human rights of the victims and the State has a duty to protect its citizens from such attacks.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 120-B, 452 AND 326-A READ WITH SECTION 34 IPC - COMMON QUESTIONS OF LAW AND FACTS - CONVICTION AND SENTENCE - SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE - MEDICAL EVIDENCE - FSL REPORT - STATEMENT OF VICTIMS - DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS - RECOVERY OF BOTTLE AND CLOTH - PLEA OF ALIBI - FAILURE TO PROVE - ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION - GUIDELINES ISSUED BY SUPREME COURT - DIRECTIONS TO STATE GOVERNMENTS - MANDATORY DIRECTIONS TO CURB ACID ATTACKS.

Fact of the Case:

The prosecution case was that on 15.12.2014, ASI Meenawanti received information that in House No. D-65, Dharam Colony, Gurgaon, some body had thrown acid on a woman and a girl. She reached the spot and came to know that the injured were admitted in Columbia Asia Hospital. She obtained the medical ruqa and MLC of injured Suman and Ruchi. She moved an application to the doctor. The doctor declared Suman fit to make statement. She recorded the statement of Suman. According to the injured Suman, at about 1.30 PM, she, her daughter Ruchi, son Suraj and younger sister Sudha were present in her rented accommodation. A young boy aged about 18-20 years came and knocked at the door of their room. She opened the door. The boy stated that he was a Plumber and he was called by some one. He showed the mobile number in his mobile. She stated that she did not know who was having the said mobile number. The boy stated that the said mobile number was switched off. She closed the door. After about thirty minutes, he again came and knocked at the door. He stated that he was to go to the house of Ram Pal. She stated that no person, namely Ram Pal, was living there. In the meantime, that unknown boy threw some burning substance (jawalansheel padarth) from a small bottle, which he was holding in his hand, on her breast and body. Her daughter Ruchi was also standing there and the burning substance also fell on her. Then he threw the small bottle, bolted their door from outside and ran away. They raised hue and cry. Thereafter, her sister Sudha took her and her daughter to Columbia Asia Hospital. The FIR was registered. Burnt shirt of Suman and the bottle, from which acid was thrown, were collected from the spot. These were sent for FSL examination. The accused were arrested on 19.12.2014. Their disclosure statements were recorded. Accused Azad was also got medico legally examined. He had received injuries due to burns, as per MLR dated 19.12.2014. Statements of the complainant and her daughter were also recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Challan was presented after completing all the codal formalities.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecution had proved its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The court also found that the plea of alibi taken by accused Azad alias Ismail was not proved. The court further found that the increasing menace of acid attacks violates the basic human rights of the victims and that the State has a duty to protect its citizens from such attacks.

Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt? 2. Whether the plea of alibi taken by accused Azad alias Ismail was proved? 3. Whether the increasing menace of acid attacks violates the basic human rights of the victims? 4. Whether the State has a duty to protect its citizens from such attacks?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution had proved its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt based on the following evidence: a. Medical evidence b. FSL report c. Statement of victims d. Disclosure statements e. Recovery of bottle and cloth 2. The court held that the plea of alibi taken by accused Azad alias Ismail was not proved as he could not produce any documentary proof regarding employment of Azad alias Ismail as labourer with him for the purpose of white washing. 3. The court held that the increasing menace of acid attacks violates the basic human rights of the victims as it violates their right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. 4. The court held that the State has a duty to protect its citizens from such attacks by taking appropriate measures such as regulating the sale of acid, providing compensation to victims, and creating awareness about the issue.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals and upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellants. The court also directed the State Governments to take appropriate measures to curb acid attacks and to provide compensation to the victims.