1
THE COURT OF IX ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE: (FTC), KRISHNA:
MACHILIPATNAM.
PRESENT: SRI Dr.S.S.S.JAYARAJU,
IX ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, KRISHNA,
(FTC), MACHILIPATNAM.
Monday, this the 30th day of July, 2018.
SESSIONS CASE No. 301 / 2014
(P.R.C.No. 21/2014 on the file of II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class Machilipatnam in Crime No.84/2014 of Inaguduru P.S)
Name of the Complainant :State, represented by The Inspector of Police, Inaguduru P.S, Machilipatnam.
Name of the Accused :Shaik Subhani, S/o Syda, Aged 33 years, Muslim, Maggala Colony, Rajupet, Machilipatnam.
Charges: U/Secs. 302, 307, 326-A of I.P.C
Plea of the accused: Pleaded not guilty
Period of detention: 04.05.2014 to 05.08.2014
Finding of the Court : Found Guilty for the offences under Secs.302, 307 and 326-A of IPC
Sentence or Order :Convicted under Sec.235(2) of Cr.P.C
Prosecution conducted by: Sri L. Venkateswararao, Addl. Public Prosecutor, I A.D.S.J Court, Machilipatnam, entrusted to conduct prosecution in S.C.301/2014 on the file of this Curt.
Accused defended by:Sri V.J.M.Lohia, Advocate for Accused.
This Sessions case is coming on 23.7.2018 for final hearing
before me in the presence of Sri K. Radha Krishna, Addl. Public Prosecutor,
for the state-complainant, and Sri V.J.M.Lohia, Counsel for accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:
// J U D G M E N T //
This is a Sessions Case arose from P.R.C. No. 21/2014 on the file of II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Machilipatnam and the said P.R.C.
arose from F.I.R. in Crime No. 84/2014 of Inaguduru Police Station.
2
2.After filing of charge-sheet, the learned Magistrate concerned had committed the case to Court of Sessions, Krishna District in the said P.R.C., by passing a Committal Order dt.17.11.2014. Before committal of the case, learned Magistrate concerned, furnished copies of material papers to the
Accused herein, as per Sec. 207 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
3.Court of Sessions, Krishna District, after committal, numbered the case against the Accused herein and made over the same to this Court for disposal according to law.
4.Accused is on bail. On receipt of summons, issued by this Court,
Accused made his appearance before this Court. He engaged an Advocate
Sri V.J.M. Lohia to defend his case.
5.In this Court, charges under Secs. 302, 307, 326-A of I.P.C has been framed against accused and the said charges were read over and explained to the Accused in Telugu. He pleaded not guilty and claimed that the case to be tried against him. Basing on the material available on record, my predecessor in office framed charges under Sections 302 and 326 I.P.C.
Later the charges are re-framed retaining Sec.302 IPC and adding Sections 307 and 326-A IPC in the place of 326 IPC.
6. In trial, P.Ws.1 to 17 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.33 were marked besides M.Os.1 to 6 on behalf of prosecution. DW.1 was examined on behalf of Accused but Ex.D.1 & D.2were marked.
7.Accused was examined U/Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. He denied incriminating evidence available on record against him and reported no defence side evidence.
8. The case of the Prosecution, in brief, is as follows;
(i) PW.1-Mohammad Hazida, PW.2 – Md.Yusuf and deceased
Md.Zareena are residents of Maggala Colony, Rajupet Machilipatnam. PW.2 and deceased are parents of PW.1. About 2 years back Pws.1 & 2 and deceased came to the Eastern side portion of the house of PW.7 for rent and residing there. The accused is also residing in a separate room in the house 3 of PW.7, which is situated within the same compound and doing Rold-Gold
Works. The accused used to say PW.1 and deceased that he will marry PW.1, as his wife is suffering with cancer and will die soon. On that, deceased informed him that if he took divorce from his wife, they will talk with elders and if possible, they will perform the marriage of PW.1 with him. PW.2 chastised the accused not to move with PW.1 freely until he gives divorce to his wife.
For which, the accused grew wild against PW.1 and deceased as he suspected that they will not allow him to marry PW.1. On 28.3.2014 morning
PW.1 and deceased went to Kakani Darga and returned back on the night at about 10.00 p.m. The accused questioned them by saying “Yekkadiki Vellere,
Yakkadekkada Tiruguthunnare Talli Kuthurulu” and so questioning, he went inside of his room and brought out Sulphuric Acid bucket and poured acid on
PW.1 and deceased with an intention to kill them and caused acid burns. The accused poured acid on them with a view to kill them as they went to Kakani without informing to him and PW.1 is not marrying him. PW.4-Ghanta Nalini
Kanth and LW.8-Anakapalli Satyanarayana telephoned to 108 ambulance and shifted them to Government Hospital for treatment.
(ii) On receipt of hospital intimation, PW.16-Sri B.Tulasidhar, S.I of
Police Inaguduru P.S visited the Government Hospital, recorded the statement of injured and registered FIR in Cr.No.84/2014 under Sec.326-A of IPC and investigated into. On the strength of evidence of witnesses, PW.16 have added Section 307 IPC, visited the scene of offence along with mediators, seized M.Os of plastic bucket, plastic tin containing acid and the burnt cloth melted pieces, got drafted observation report and photographed the scene of offence. He examined witnesses and recorded their statements, seized M.Os of burning cloth of black coloured 'buraka' belongs to deceased, burnt cloth with red white and black coloured flowers designed Panjabi top and green coloured lower belongs to PW.1 from Government Hospital, Machilipatnam.
PW.16-S.I of Police forwarded the seized and preserved burnt skin of PW.1 with acid and burnt skin of deceased with acid to the RFSL for chemical analysis.
(iii) On receipt of intimation PW.14-Judicial I Class Magistrate, Spl.
Mobile Court, Machilipatnam recorded Dying Declaration of the injured and deceased. On requisition PW.16, Judicial I Class Magistrate, Bantumilli recorded 164 Cr.P.C statements of PW.6, PW.7 and PW.8. On 6.5.2014 at 14.00 hours PW.16 received death intimation of the injured and issued altered 4
FIR in Cr.No.84/2014 under Section 326-A, 307, 302 IPC from 326-A IPC and investigated into as PW.17 Inspector of Police was engaged in Election duty.
PW.16 held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of the inquest Panchayatdars, examined the witnesses, who are blood relatives of the deceased, recorded their statements and sent the deceased for P.M examination. During the course of investigation PW.16 arrested the accused on 3.5.2014 at 9.30 hours at Government General Hospital Vijayawada and drafted his confessional statement. PW.15, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased issued P.M Certificate and opined that the deceased would appear to have died due to burns and its complications.
PW.9, who examined and gave treatment to the injured PW.1 issued wound certificate opining that PW.1 sustained grievous injuries caused due to acid.
The accused also sustained simple injuries due to acid burns. PW.16 prepared letter of advice and forwarded the preserved M.Os to RFSL, Vijauyawada.
After obtaining chemical analysis report and after verifying investigation of
PW.16, PW.17 filed charge sheet against the accused.
9.The case of the Accused is of total denial, pleaded not guilty and he did not adduce any defence evidence.
10.Heard the arguments on both sides on 20.7.18 and on 23.7.18.
11.Now, the crucial point for consideration is – Whether the prosecution proved guilt of the accused under Sections 302, 307, 326-A of IPC with cogent, coherent, consistent, corroborating evidence and beyond all reasonable doubts?
POINT:
12.In order to answer the point, it is necessary to peruse the evidence adduced by the prosecution during trial. For quick reference, relevant provisions of charged offences are extracted below:
Sec.307 of IPC: Attempt to murder:-
Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.
5
Sec.302 of IPC: Punishment for murder:-
Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.
Sec.326-A of IPC:- Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid etc. (Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013. Whoever causes permanent or partial damage of deformity to, or bums or maims or disfigures or disables, any part or parts of the body of a person or causes grievous hurt by throwing acid on or by administering acid to that person, or by using any other means with the intention of causing or with the knowledge that he is likely to cause such injury or hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and with fine; provided that such fine shall be just and reasonable to meet the medical expenses of the treatment of the victim; provided further that any fine imposed under this section shall be paid to victim.
13.In order to prove the case, prosecution examined Pws.1 to 17 and
Exs.P.1 to P.33 are marked on behalf of the prosecution. On behalf of defence side, DW.1 is examined and Exs.D.1 and D.2 are marked.
(a)P.W.1/Md. Hazida is an injured/victim and defacto- complainant;P.W.2/Md. Yusuf is father of PW.1 and husband of deceased;
P.W.3/Sk. Asma is elder sister of PW.1 and elder daughter of PW.2 and deceased; P.W.4/ Ganta Nalini Kanth, P.W.5/Sk. Khadar Vali, P.W.6/Abdul Hazi are neighbours to the scene of offence and eyewitnesses to the incident;P.W.7/Sammeta Ramakrishna is owner of the house in which accused and PW.1 and injured family resides as tenants; P.W.8/Khaja Ameeruddin is
Acid seller in the name and style of Kaza Enterprises, Machilipatnam, who sold acid to the accused; P.W.9/Dr. A.B.S.Srinivasarao is a Doctor, who treated
PW.1 and accused and issued wound certificates; P.W.10/Md.Ibrahim is a son of deceased and PW.2 and he elder brother to PW.1/injured and PW.3;
P.W.11/Abdul Rafi is one of the mediator to the scene observation report as well as to the confessional report of the accused; P.W.12/Sk. Karimullah is one of the Panchayatdar to the Inquest report of the deceased;
P.W.13/Ch.L.Srinivasa Rao, is Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Bantumill, who recorded Sec.164 Cr.P.C statements of Pws.6, 7 & 8 as in Exs.P.19 to 21;
P.W.14: Smt. A.Anith is Spl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, Mobile Court,
Machilipatnam, who recorded Dying Declarations of PW.1 and deceased as in
Exs.P.22 and P.23; P.W.15/Dr. Jhansi Lakshmi is a Doctor, who conducted
Autopsy over the dead body of deceased Zareena; P.W.16/B.Tulasidhar is S.I 6 of Police, Inagudurupet, P.S, who registered the case and investigated into;
P.W.17/K. Sai Prasad is C.I of Police who took further investigation and filed charge sheet.
(b)Ex.P.1 is Toe mark of PW.1 on the statement recorded by
Judicial Officer; Ex.P.2 is Toe mark of PW.1 on the statement recorded by
Police; Ex.P.3 is signature of PW.3 on the statement of PW.1 (Ex.P.2); Ex.P.4 is Sec.161 Cr.P.C., Statement of P.W.6; Ex.P.5 is signature of PW.6 in his
Sec.164 Cr.P.C., Statement, but it is wrongly typed in the deposition as
Sec.164 Cr.P.C statement of PW.6; Ex.P.6 is Sec.161 Cr.P.C., Statement of
P.W.7; Ex.P.7 is signature of PW.7 in his Sec.164 Cr.P.C., Statement, but it is wrongly typed in the deposition as Sec.164 Cr.P.C statement of PW.7; Ex.P.8 is true copy of Bill dt.28.3.14; Ex.P.9 is signature of PW.8 in his Sec.164
Cr.P.C., Statement, but it is wrongly typed in the deposition as Sec.164 Cr.P.C statement of PW.8; Ex.P.10 is wound certificate of PW.1; Ex.P.11 is wound certificate of Accused; Ex.P.12 is a requisition to Magistrate to record dying declaration of Md.Zareena; Ex.P.13 is a requisition to Magistrate to record dying declaration of Md.Hazeeda; Ex.P.14 is Intimation to OPPS,
Machilipatnam; Ex.P.15 is Mediators Panchanama dt.29.3.14; Ex.P.16 is
Mediators Panchanama dt.29.3.14; Ex.P.17 is confessional statement of accused; Ex.P.18 is an Inquest Report conducted over the dead body of deceased Md.Zareena; Ex.P.19 is Sec.164 Cr.P.C., Statement of PW.6;
Ex.P.20 is Sec.164 Cr.P.C., Statement of PW.7; Ex.P.21 is Sec.164 Cr.P.C.,
Statement of PW.8; Ex.P.22 is Dying declaration of Md.Hazeeda; Ex.P.23 is
Dying declaration of Md.Zareena; Ex.P.24 is P.M.E report; Ex.P.25 is FIR in
Cr.No.84/14 of Inaguduru P.S; Ex.P.26 is a Rough Sketch; Ex.P.27 consists of 12 Photographs; Ex.P.28 is corresponding C.D to Ex.P.27-photos; Ex.P.29 is alteration memo of Section of law; Ex.P.30 is letter of advice sent to RFSL;
Ex.P.31 is Hospital intimation to S.I of Police Inaguduru P.S; Ex.P.32 is altered
F.I.R; and Ex.P.33 is R.F.S.L Report. Besides that, the prosecution on its behalf marked M.Os.1 to 6. M.O.1 is burnt Panjabi Top of PW.1; M.O.2 is Green colored bottom pant of PW.1; M.O.3 is plastic bucket; M.O.4 is Buraka belongs to deceased; M.O.5 is Plastic tin/can; M.O.6 is Burnt pieces of cloths of deceased and PW.1.
(c)The defence side examined DW.1 on its behalf and marked
Exs.D.1 and D.2. Ex.D.1 is relevant portion marked in Sec.161 Cr.P.C., 7
Statement of P.W.2 (Rendu Kallu kanapadani paristhitilo vunnadi); Ex.D.2 is relevant portion marked in Sec.161 Cr.P.C., Statement of P.W.3 (Chuttuprakkala vari dwara telusukoni). DW.1/Dr. M.V.N. Prasad is a Professor in Siddardha Medical College, Vijayawada, who deposed with regard to case sheet particulars of accused/Subhani.
14.In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the identity of the accused as the accused is known to the victim/PW.1 family. The deceased Mrs. Zarina is mother of PW.1, PW.3 and wife of PW.2 whose evidence clearly shows that the accused is married and also blessed with children. But the accused began to pressurize PW.1 and his family members to agree for the proposal of his second marriage with PW.1 by misrepresenting that the wife of accused is a cancer patient. The parents of PW.1 refused for such proposal by suggesting to the accused that they would consider the proposal in the presence of community elders only ifaccused obtained divorce from his 1st wife which the accused could not. Since then, the accused began to harass PW.1 and her family and also bore grudge against PW.1, deceased which appears to be strong motive for the accused to indulge in acid attack on
PW.1 and deceased, as per the version of prosecution. PW.1 also stated that the accused was repeated such proposal continuously and began to threaten
PW.1 and her parents that he would see their end if they do not agree for second marriage and without obtaining divorce from his first wife. It further appears from the record that the accused bore grudge against PW.1 and the deceased since they did not talk to him for about one month. In the light of above discussion and evidence, the contention of defence side that the victim’s family bore grudge against the accused since the accused failed to help them is not convincing and reliable when the family of PW.1 is not in talking terms with the accused, the question of demanding some help or the other does not arise.
15.On 28.3.2014 when PW.1 and her mother were going out, accused not only intervened but also questioned them in indecent manner as to where they were going PW.1 failed to state what type of indecent words accused used. At about 10.00 p.m when PW.1 and her mother returned from
Darga of Pedakakani of Guntur District, PW.1 and her mother found the accused standing near the entrance gate of the house and the accused 8 questioned them as to where they went and why they were roaming since morning. When mother of PW.1 replied that it is not his business and they need not inform him before they go out, accused got angry and shouted against them. At that time, PW.4, PW.7 and some other neighbors assembled at the scene of offence. Accused grew wild on hearing such response and reply from the mother of PW.1. Immediately, accused challenged them that he would see their end and went into the house. Accused brought acid bucket (M.O.3) and threw the bucket full of acid on PW.1 and deceased by saying ‘chavande mundallara’. PW.1 further deposed that at that time her father and neighbors observed the act of the accused shows some discrepancy which is minor in nature. Due to attack of the accused with acid, the face, chest, hands, legs etc., of PW.1 were burnt, while back side body, back side chest, hands and waist of deceased was burnt. As per PW.1, the only reason, motive and intention of accused to attack them with acid is that the family of
PW.1 refused to perform second marriage. PW.1 also stated that during such attack, clothes of PW.1 and her deceased mother were burnt and they were collected by the Police from the scene of offence. PW.4 made a phone call to 108 Ambulance to shift the victim women to Government General Hospital,
Machilipatnam for treatment.
16.It is also clear evidence of PW.1 that one lady Judicial Officer (PW.14) recorded her statement and statement of her deceased mother. She also stated that the police recorded her statement (Ex.P.2). It is specific evidence of PW.1 that her toe mark-Ex.P.1 was obtained on her statement since the skin of her hands was burnt and the skin was pealing. She also stated that her sister (PW.3) affixed signature as a witness. Later, they were shifted to Vijayawada but while undergoing treatment, mother of PW.1 died on 6.5.2014. It is further evidence of PW.1 that so far three operations were conducted on her. One operation to her hands as the skin was burnt. It is specific evidence of PW.1 that acid injuries of PW.1 are not yet healed and she is yet to recover completely.
17.It is in the evidence of PW.1 that she would get infection and dust allergy whenever she go out. She identified clothes M.O.1, M.O.2, M.O.4 and the bucket-M.O.3, used by the accused to throw acid. It is also version of
PW.1 that the accused intentionally attacked them to kill and during such 9 attack, the accused also sustained acid injuries on his face, shoulders and on hands. She denied a suggestion during the cross-examination of defence that for the first time she stated during the trial that the accused threatened her parents and challenged as to who would come and discuss about the marriage, if intervened he will see their end. She admitted that she is also doing Rold-Gold work. Except bald suggestion that the accused and PW.1 resided in the house of his brother for about week days, no convincing and clear evidence is brought on record by the defence side to substantiate such suggestion. The defence side cross-examined PW.1 at length and in detail but nothing is adduced to show that the accused is not involved in the commission of offence. To another question PW.1 stated that her sister/PW.3 came to the hospital after they reached. She also stated that she was not blind except feeling continuous burning sensation of eyes at the time of recording her statement. The suggestion of defence side that on the date of incident, her deceased mother was not with PW.1 is totally false and baseless as in the same incident PW.1 and her mother received acid injuries and also they were shifted to Government Hospital. Presence of PW.1, deceased, accused and neighbors witnessing the incident clearly spoken by PW.4 and PW.7. The other suggestion of defence side is that they mixed some country medicine in the food of the accused to mend him towards PW.1 is baseless as no convincing evidence is shown by accused to substantiate such suggestion. An other suggestion to PW.1 that in depression condition, to threaten the accused as he failed to marry PW.1 and to harass the accused, PW.1 herself poured acid to commit suicide is another unreliable and unacceptable suggestion.
The other suggestion of defence side that on the date of the incident, the deceased mother of PW.1 and PW.1 went to room of the accused and at that time PW.1 tried to kill herself by pouring acid from the bucket and in that process of saving PW.1, the accused and mother of PW.1 received acid injuries is another baseless suggestion as the accused side did not examine any one of the neighbors of the locality to substantiate such circumstance.
18.The other suggestion of PW.1 is that they went to Police Station to give report and basing on such report, police shifted the accused to the hospital is incorrect as the circumstances of the case clearly show that PW.1 and her mother were in serious condition as they received acid burn injuries.
The evidence of PW.4 shows that the injured were shifted in 108 ambulance 10 from the scene of offence. Therefore, the version of the accused side that they went to Police Station to give report against the accused is false. She denied another suggestion that due to her mistake, her mother died and that due to political influence and due to effect of news coverage that two women were attacked with acid and that the accused is falsely implicated in the present case.
19.PW.2 is the father of PW.1, PW.3 and husband of deceased stated that the accused used to reside in a room in the house of Rama Krishna, wherein they resided as tenants. He clearly stated that the accused married and he is blessed with a wife and two children. It is in the evidence of PW.2 that the accused informed them that the wife of accused is a cancer patient and she would die as such accused intended to marry his daughter (PW.1), but they informed the accused to take divorce, so that the issue of the second marriage of accused can be decided in the presence of elders. It is also in his evidence that they later came to know about false information of accused as his wife is hale and healthy. PW.2 also stated that accused began to force them for marriage of his daughter with him and in that connection his deceased wife admonished the accused. PW.2 also stated that they have no talking terms with the accused after the deceased admonished the accused.
He clearly stated that where PW.1 and deceased returned from Pedakakani
Darga at about 10.00 p.m., the incident occurred. At that time he was taking rest as he was not feeling well but on hearing shouts from the gate, he rushed out to observe the 'galata'. It is also his evidence that the room of the accused is by the side of the gate and that he observed the accused going into the room and coming out with acid bucket. It is also clear evidence of PW.2 that the accused first threw acid on his daughter and later on his wife, when his wife went to rescue his daughter-PW.1. Thus, PW.1 and deceased received acid burn injuries on different parts of the body. PW.2 also stated that at that time many neighbors assembled. It is also categorical version of PW.2 that during the process of throwing acid, accused also received injuries. Later, accused left acid bucket at the scene of offence and sped away.
20.PW.2 further stated that the residents of locality helped to shift the injured to the hospital in 108 ambulance. As per his version, accused had an intention to kill his daughter as they are not agreeing for the marriage proposal 11 and developed grudge against his wife who admonished accused. Hence;, accused resorted to such acid attack. It is further evidence of PW.2 that his wife and daughter PW.1 were shifted to Vijayawada on the following day for treatment. Police examined and recorded his statement and he identified the bucket-M.O.3. PW.2 further stated that his deceased wife underwent treatment for about one month and 15 days but later she died in the Government
Hospital. His daughter is still suffering and her nose is burnt during the acid attack, as such the Doctors advised PW.1 has to undergo nose operation also.
21.In the cross-examination, PW.2 denied the suggestion that he did not state before the police that the accused threw acid first on his daughter and then on his wife. At another stage he stated that by the time he came out, accused already threw the acid on the two injured persons. He denied another suggestion that accused was very intimate with his family since two years prior to the incident. He stated like PW.1 that he got partial paralysis and he took treatment for that. He further stated that the local people came to the scene earlier than him. PW.2 also stated that within one hour a Magistrate and
Police came to Machilipatnam Hospital to enquire and record statements. He stated that he did not state before the police as in Ex.D.1 that her daughter could not see with her eyes. He denied the suggestion that her daughter had strong desire to marry the accused and that her daughter brought force on the accused to take divorce from his wife so as to finalize marriage proposals. He opposed another suggestion that PW.1 herself poured acid on her and in that process accused and his wife received acid injuries. Thus, the defence side is admitting the presence of the accused at the scene of offence at the material time. Then, the other question is whether PW.1 poured acid by herself or the accused poured bucket full of acid on PW.1 and PW.2. This aspect will be dealt in detail after discussing the evidence of prosecution witness. He denied another suggestion that PW.1 and his wife gave country medicine to the accused as the accused was not listening to them. It is clear evidence of
PW.2 during his cross-examination that within five minutes people gathered and shifted the injured to the hospital. He opposed another suggestion that all the persons had discussed before shifting the injured and that at the instance of his daughter PW.1, he is deposing falsehood.
12
22.PW.3 is sister of PW.1, daughter of PW.2 and deceased stated like PW.1 and PW.2 that the accused intended to marry her sister PW.1 by stating that wife of accused is cancer patient, as such he wanted to marry his sister/PW.1 as second wife, but the proposal was opposed by her parents and directed the accused to take divorce from his wife before the matter is placed for the decision of community elders. This witness also stated that her sister-
PW.1 and deceased mother went to Kakani Darga and returned at about 10.00 p.m. It is also in the evidence of PW.3 that the accused Subhani came to her house at 10.00 a.m to enquire about her mother and sister as to where they had gone. It is clear evidence of PW.3 that on the same day for about 3 or 4 times, accused went to the house of PW.3 to enquire about PW.1 and her mother. She also stated that at that time accused challenged that he would see the end of her mother and sister as they went out without informing him.
She came to know about the accused throwing acid on PW.1 and deceased when her father and Satyanarayana came to her house and informed the incident. Immediately, she went to the hospital and observed the face of her sister was burnt and noticed acid injuries on the hands, on the chest and on her legs, while her mother sustained acid injuries on her back, on her left hand and down to her waist. This witness also stated like PW.2 that when they were at Government Hospital a judge and police came to record the statement of
PW.1 and deceased. As per the version of PW.3, accused bore grudge against the deceased and PW.1 as PW.1 is not given in marriage and her mother is objecting. She further stated that she also came to know that acid fell on the face and hands of the accused, when the acid thrown on the injured.
She deposed like PW.1 that she signed on the statement of her sister (Ex.P.3) as hands of her sister/PW.1 were burnt and police obtained toe mark of her sister on the statement of PW.1. Later, the injured were shifted to Government
Hospital, Vijayawada, where they took treatment for one month and 10 days.
Later, her mother died in the hospital and the present condition of her sister is not good due to the acid injuries and the PW.1 was taken to Hyderabad for further treatment. This witness stated that three operations were conducted to
PW.1 eyes, mouth and to her hands.
23.During her cross-examination she stated that she do not remember whether she stated that the accused continued to harass her parents even after admonishing the accused and she stated everything before 13 the Police in her sorrowful condition but she does not know why police did not mention the same. Even though PW.3 is cross-examined at length and in detail, nothing was elicited to disbelieve the evidence of PW.3 or disprove the involvement of the accused. She also stated that she did not state before the police that she came to know about the incident as in Ex.D.2 from the neighbors of the accused that accused attacked her mother and sister with acid and then she went to the hospital. PW.3 during cross examination stated that she observed her sister with babuls on the body and serious burning sensation in the eyes, but PW.1 was not completely blind as deposed by
PW.1. To another to question PW.3 stated that she did not take threat of the accused on 28.3.2014 seriously as such she did not inform to the police or to any elder. She opposed a suggestion of defence side that her sister was depressed when her mother insisted to bring divorce papers from the 1st wife of the accused and to pressurize the accused, PW.1 poured acid on herself and in the process of rescuing PW.1, her deceased mother and accused received injuries. She opposed another suggestion that PW.1 moved with accused for about two years with a hope that the accused would take ‘Talakh’ from his wife and his sister PW.1 attempted to commit suicide due to depression and that she is deposing false to support the version of Police and
PW.1.
24.PW.4 is one of the resident of locality clearly stated that accused resided in the house of Ramakrishna(PW.7) in one of the rooms that was by the side of the gate. This witness also clearly stated that on 28.3.14 at about 10.00 p.m., he heard shouts from the house of PW.7, Hence, he immediately went to the place and observed that the accused was standing outside the gate, while PW.1 and her mother were on the road. This witness clearly, categorically and specifically stated that the accused brought a plastic bucket from the side of the gate and poured on PW.1 and deceased. He also observed smoke at that time coming out from the bodies of PW.1 and deceased. It is his clear version of PW.4 that in that process acid fell on the right shoulder and fingers of the right palm of the accused due to force of acid, it came back and fell on the accused. He also observed acid fell on the face, chest, hands, legs of PW.1 and back side of the deceased. It is his evidence that he only shifted both the injured to Government Hospital as such he could sense burn injuries of mother of PW.1 as she was in ‘Burka’. He stated that at 14 that time one Satyanarayana, LW.10-Kondalamma, LW.6-Seshu and some other persons of that locality were also present at the scene. He also came to know from PW.2 that the accused is demanding the family for marriage with
PW.1 since two years, even though accused is married and blessed with two children and that the family of PW.2 demanded the accused to take divorce from his first wife. It is also in the evidence of PW.4 that since two months there were no talking terms between family of PW.2 and accused. He opined that the accused might have bore grudge and attacked wife and daughter of
PW.2 with acid since he bore grudge. He clearly admitted in his cross- examination that he only called 108 ambulance to shift the injured PW.1 and her mother to the hospital and he was examined by the police, but denied a suggestion that he was not present at the scene and did not see accused throwing acid on PW.1 and deceased.
25.PW.5 stated that from the deceased Zarina, he came to know that the accused wanted to marry PW.1, but she demanded the accused to take divorce from his first wife before considering the proposal. This witness also stated like PW.4 that on 28.3.2014 at about 10.00 p.m he heard shouts from the opposite of his house and he went out and observed the two women struggling with burn injuries due to acid effect. This witness also stated like
PW.4 that PW.1 sustained acid injuries on face, chest, hands and legs while mother of PW.1 received acid injuries on the back side of her body. PW.5 also observed smoke came out from the bodies of the two women due to the effect of the acid and he came to know from the people gathered there that the accused also received injuries on his hands and face. This witness stated like earlier witness PW.4 that LWs.8 to 10 (Anakapalli Satyanarayana, Abdul Hazi-
PW.6, Vemula Kondamma) were present at the scene of offence. In the cross- examination also he categorically stated that all the witnesses present at the scene earlier than him proves the fact that PW.4 is an eye witness to the incident. He denied suggestion that he is distant relative of PW.3.
26.It is in the evidence of PW.6 that from the locality people he came to know that acid was poured, but he failed to state who is responsible for that.
Since the witness resiled from his earlier statement, the learned A.P.P sought permission of the Court to declare the witness and to examine him. In the cross-examination by the learned A.P.P he denied the suggestion that he 15 stated before the police as in Ex.P.4 and before the Magistrate as in Ex.P.5 but deposing falsehood to help the accused. In the cross-examination, he clearly admitted that after understanding the statement recorded by the Magistrate, he affixed his signature as the contents therein are true. He clearly stated that the deceased died due to acid injuries and PW.1 sustained acid injuries. In the cross-examination, he opposed suggestion that PW.1 herself poured acid and the accused received injuries when they tried to rescue PW.1 shows that PW.1 did not pour acid by herself. Thus, it appears that there is a force in the suggestion to the hostile witness by the learned A.P.P that he is deposing false to help the accused.
27.PW.7 stated that on 28.3.2014 he heard voices from outside of his house at 10.30 p.m and when he came out of the house PW.1 and her mother were taken to Government hospital in 108 ambulance at that time, he came to know that the accused Subhani poured acid on two women and disappeared from the scene of offence is suffice to conclude that evidence of PW.7 corroborates with the version of PWs.1 to 5 that accused only poured acid on
PW.1 and the deceased and he repeated other facts as deposed by PW.4 that accused is insisting the family of PW.2 to agree for the proposal of marriage between accused and PW.1. Thus the earlier question can be answered in favour of prosecution. Since this witness did not support the version of prosecution fully, he is declared hostile by the Court and with the permission of the Court the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor cross-examined him. During such cross-examination PW.7 denied suggestion that he stated before the police as in Ex.P.6 and before the learned Magistrate as in Ex.P.7 that the accused thrown acid on the deceased Zarina and Hazeeda/PW.1 and sped away from the scene of offence, but now he is deposing falsehood to help the accused. He further stated that he affixed signature Ex.P.7 on the statement recorded by the learned Magistrate after the contents were read over and understood as they are true and fact clearly shows PW.7 intentionally deposing falsehood. During the cross-examination of accused side, he clearly denied the suggestion that PW.1 herself poured acid and that he is deposing falsehood. Basing on the above version of hostile witness also, it can be conclude that the accused poured acid on PW.1 and deceased but not as suggested by the defence side.
16
28.PW.8 is doing acid business since 1989 clearly stated that he used to sell the acid to be used in the Rold-Gold works. It is also his evidence that accused purchased 05 Kgs Sulfuric acid and 01 Kg Nitric acid from his shop on 28.3.2014 at about 5 or 6 p.m. He further stated that he issued bill when the accused purchased the acid from his shop and collected an amount of Rs.100/-. It is his further evidence that he gave the acid in 5 litres tin and sulfuric acid in 1 liter plastic bottle. He stated that police enquired and recorded his statement. He stated that he can identify the bill given to the accused appearing on the true copy of the bill is that of him. He further stated that his statement-Ex.P.21 was recorded by the learned Magistrate. The defence side cross-examined this witness at length and in detailed, but failed to show that he never sold acid to the accused. Basing on the evidence and bill-Ex.P.8 produced by PW.8, it can be concluded licence was granted to
PW.8 to sell acid to the people working in Rold-Gold works.
29.PW.9 is the Doctor, who examined the injured/PW.1-Hazeeda and found superficial burn injuries present over the face, chest, left arm, both hands and both foot. He stated that the patient was referred to Government
General Hospital, Vijayawada. The injuries of PW.1 are grievous in nature and caused due to acid burns. To that extent, he issued wound certificate-Ex.P.10.
He further stated that on the same day he examined another patient by name
Subhani/accused and found superficial burns over the face, chest, right hand and he opined that the injuries sustained by the accused are nearly about 20% and simple in nature. Those injuries are caused due to acid burns and sustained within six hours prior to his examination. He issued wound certificate-Ex.P.11 of the accused/Subhani. It is his evidence that he sent a requisition to the Magistrate to record dying declaration of the deceased Zarina and Hazeeda as in Ex.P.13. He further stated that he sent Police intimation-
Ex.P.14 to O.P.P.S available at Government General Hospital, Machilipatnam.
It is his further evidence that he was present when the Magistrate recorded the statement of PW.1 and her mother and he signed on the statement to certify that the patients were coherent, conscious and in fit condition to give statements. He also certified the statements of PW.1 recorded by the police that the patients were in conscious at the time of recording statement. It is his clear and specific evidence that during his examination-in-chief that the acid injuries sustained by deceased and PW.1 were not due to self pouring.
17
30.In the cross-examination PW.9 stated that the percentage of burns were not mentioned in Ex.P.10-wound certificate itself is of no useful to defence side to show that the deceased never sustained acid burns. He admitted that he struck off the word simple in Ex.P.10 to mention that the injuries are grievous in nature as per the opinion of the Ward In-charge. He also admitted that in Ex.P.11-wound certificate he mentioned that Inaguduru
Police accompanied the injured. He further admitted that accused/Subhani was also referred to Government Hospital, Vijayawada for better treatment.
He opposed the suggestion of defence side that he can not differentiate between self pouring and pouring of acid by others but stated with the experience and knowledge in medical field he can give opinion on that aspect.
He categorically stated that if acid is self poured, it will be run from the head to down ward, but not directly splashed on face, chest, hands and on front side of the injured. He also stated that he clearly mentioned in both the intimations sent to the Magistrate that the patients were in Female Surgical Ward/Burns
Ward. He also stated that the time of examination by the learned Magistrate was already mentioned in the statements, as such he did not mention the date and time beneath his signature appearing in the statement of PW.1 and deceased.
31.PW.10 is brother of PW.1 and PW.3 and son of PW.2 and the deceased. It is his evidence that accused is residing in the house of
Ramakrishna/PW.7 where his parents and sister is also residing. He received phone call from his sister-PW.3 informing that accused/Subhani poured acid on his sister and mother as his sister was not agreeing for marriage. He further stated that from his sister, he came to know that the accused challenged as to who would intervene and prevent his marriage. After hearing about the incident, he immediately came to Vijayawada, observed his sister with acid injuries on face, chest, hands and legs and acid injuries to his mother on the back side on the waist and back side legs. When he enquired his father as to what happened, PW.2 informed him that the accused was harassing PW.1 for marriage, since PW.1 is not marrying him, accused bore grudge against his sister and poured acid. After one month and ten days his mother died. In the cross-examination he clearly stated that all the above facts and the incident was informed to him by his family members and denied the suggestion that her sister PW.1 poured acid on herself and in that process, his deceased mother and accused sustained injuries.
18
32.PW.11 is the mediator for Panchanama-Ex.P.15 that was conducted on 29.3.2014 by police in the presence of this witness and LW.22-
Abdul Azeem. It is his evidence that they observed bucket-M.O.3 and burnt 'Burka' pieces from the scene. He further stated that at that time, police also seized a can-M.O.5 from the room of the accused. They observed sulfuric acid in the can. It is also his evidence that in their presence police also took photos of the scene of offence and that Police affixed their signed slips on the material objects they seized at the scene of offence. He further stated that on the same day, they went to Government Hospital and found two women undergoing treatment in Burns Ward. He observed PW.1 and the deceased/mother of PW.1 with burns and at that time, the mediators came to know that accused/Subhani threw acid on those injured women. In the presence of mediators Police seized 'Burka' of deceased and Panjabi dress of
PW.1 (M.O.6). At that time Police drafted mediator Panchanama-Ex.P.16 and the mediators singed. He further stated that on 3.5.2014 Panch witnesses went to Vijayawada Government Hospital along with Inspector of Police where they observed the accused undergoing treatment with burn injuries. When they enquired, accused informed that he threw acid on PW.1 and deceased and that at that time, the acid also fell on him, as such he sustained burn injuries. It is further evidence that accused also informed that he purchased acid from Ameeruddin/PW.8 of Machilipatnam on 28.3.14. At the hospital, the statement of accused was reduced into writing. The accused also signed on confessional statement-Ex.P.17 along with mediators and S.I of Police. At that juncture, the defence counsel objected to mark the confessional statement by stating that nothing was seized in pursuance of confession. But it is the submission of the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor that basing on confession, the S.I of Police took up further investigation and obtained receipt-Ex.P.8 from
PW.8, as such the confession is admissible.
33.In the cross-examination the witness stated that they did not observe the accused in the hospital when they went to seize the clothes of deceased and PW.1. The version of witness need not be doubted since women were kept in separate ward as such there is no possibility of observing the accused in women ward. It is also evidence during his cross-examination that statement of accused was recorded at Government Hospital Vijayawada and at that time, the Doctors were present. The learned counsel during cross- 19 examination pointed out that he noted the dates on his palm and on seeing the palm he is giving dates. Even if such portion is deleted and disbelieved, conducting of panchanama in the presence of mediators can be believed as the defence side failed to adduce evidence to disbelieve the version of the witness. He denied another specific suggestion that he is member of Mythri
Committee of Inaguduru P.S but he stated that LW.19/PW.12 is member, but not this witness. He opposed the suggestion that he is deposing false at the instance of Police.
34.PW.12 is another Panch witness for the inquest that was conducted over the dead body of the deceased Zareena on 6.5.2014 at
Government Hospital, Vijayawada. It is his clear evidence that they observed pealing of skin from the back side part of the body of the deceased Zareena and the cause of death as per the opinion they collected from the relatives of the deceased is that the accused/Subhani pored acid and due to that effect, the deceased died. The same opinion was incorporated in the inquest-Ex.P.18.
In the cross-examination also he clearly stated that he knew cause of death of deceased.
35.PW.13 is the Judicial First Class Magistrate, who recorded
Sec.164 Cr.P.C statement of LW.9, 11 and 13. The witness is examined basing on the petition filed by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor as the prosecution witnesses, whose statement PW.13 recorded turned hostile. He clearly stated that he recorded Sec.164 Cr.P.C statements of LW.9, 11 and 13 and they deposed before him as appearing in Ex.P.19 to P.21.
36.PW.14 is another Magistrate, who recorded the statements of the injured Md.Hazeeda/PW.1 and Md.Zareena/deceased after receiving a requisition from Government Hospital Machilipatnam on 29.3.2014. It is her evidence that she recorded the statement of injured Hazeeda from 00.56 a.m till 1.11 a.m and then, she recorded the statement of Zareena from 1.14 a.m.
It is also clear evidence of PW.14 that after ascertaining mental condition of the injured from the duty Doctor, after putting some preliminary questions and having been satisfied that the injured is conscious, coherent and in fit condition to give statement, she began to enquire the injured. It is in the evidence of
PW.14 that the injured informed her during recording of dying declaration of 20
Zareena that PW.1 and deceased went to Darga at Kakani that they returned to Bandar at about 10.30 p.m and that while the injured were going into the house, the accused/Subhani has splashed acid over them and at that time, both injured received acid injuries.
37.It is also in the evidence of PW.14 that Hazeeda, who is daughter of the deceased, received injuries at first and later the deceased Zareena.
She also stated that accused was residing near to their house and proposed to marry Hazeeda and threatened them a month ago that he would kill them by cutting their throats in the event the family did not agree for the proposal. After recording the statement of injured Zareena, the contents of the statement were read over and admitted as correct by the deponent and then PW.14 obtained her left thumb impression. After that she obtained endorsement of the Doctor that the injured Zareena has been in conscious and fit state of mind all through the recording of her statement. It is also her evidence that she recorded the statement of Hazeeda after obtaining endorsement of duty Doctor that the injured is conscious and fit state of mind to give the statement. She also put preliminary questions to PW.1 and having been satisfied with the answers given by injured Hazeeda, that she is conscious, coherent and in fit state of mind, the Magistrate PW.14 recorded the statement of PW.1 as to how she sustained the injuries. The injured Hazeeda informed PW.14 that at night at about 11.00 p.m while her mother and PW.1 were entering into the house, the accused/Subhani brought bucket full of acid and poured on the injured. She also came to know from the injured Hazeeda that accused/Subhani has been harassing PW.1 since two years with a proposal to marry him, even though the accused had wife and two children. The Magistrate read over the statement recorded by her to the injured/Hazeeda and the injured admitted the contents are correct and later PW.14 obtained her left grate toe impression as her both hands were burnt. Later she obtained endorsement of the duty Doctor about mental and physical condition of the deponent. Ex.P.22 is the statement of
Hzeeda(PW.1) and Ex.P.23 is the statement of Zareena(deceased) recorded by PW.14 in the presence of the Doctor.
38.In the cross-examination PW.14 very clearly stated that at the time of recording statements of the two injured, no other person was seen by the side of the injured persons except Doctor. Therefore, the suggestion and 21 argument of the defence side that PW.3 tutored both the injured before the
Magistrate went to record the statement is incorrect and such suggestion is
also denied by PW.14. She opposed another suggestion that due to grudge and enmity with the accused, the injured gave false statement. Except bald suggestions, no specific question is put to the witness as to what type of grudge and enmity the injured had on accused.
39.PW.15 is the Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased Zareena and the Doctor observed anti-mortem deeply infected burns present involving the right upper limb both legs below the knees, partially on medial side of left thigh and back of right thigh and on the back of chest. It is his evidence that total percentage of burn is 42 percent and the cause of death of the deceased is due to burns and its complications. He issued P.M.E certificate-Ex.P.24 and at the time of his examination, he also observed froth fluid oozing from lungs.
40.PW.16 is the S.I of Police who received hospital intimation-
Ex.P.14 from Government Hospital Machiliaptnam. Immediately he went to
Government Hospital and recorded the statement of PW.1. He returned to the
Police Station and registered the case as a Cr.No.84/2014 under Sec.326-A of
IPC of Inaguduru P.S. Basing on the statement of PW.1, he issued FIR-
Ex.P.25 and sent copies to all the concerned authorities. He forwarded the original FIR to the Magistrate Court and deputed a constable to guard the scene of offence. Again he left the police station to the Hospital, where he examined Pws.1 to 4 and recorded their detailed statements. As per his version subsequently one of the injured by name Zareena died, but he recorded the statement of Zareena at the Government Hospital Machilipatnam.
He further stated that after recording statement of Zareena he signed on it on 29.3.2014. It is his evidence that at that time, the accused was also admitted in the Government Hospital as he sustained acid burn injuries. On the following day, he visited the scene of offence along with PW.2, where he observed the scene of offence in the presence of mediators Abdul Azeem-
LW.22, Abdul Rafi-PW.11) and prepared scene observation report-Ex.P.15.
He had drawn a rough sketch – Ex.P.26 of the scene and seized M.O.3, M.O.5 and M.O.6. It is clear evidence of PW.16 that when he seized M.O.3-bucket, it contained 200 grams of sulfuric acid and M.O.5 contains 1 Kg of sulfuric acid.
22
Later, he examined the neighbors, eyewitnesses and recorded their statements. He got the scene photographed with the Station Camera.
Ex.P.27 contains 12 photographs and Ex.P.28 is corresponding C.D. Since
PW.16 investigation discloses the offence committed by the accused attracts the provision of 307 IPC, he added the same and filed Memo-Ex.P.29 to that extent before the Magistrate Court on 29.3.2014. He visited the Government
Hospital, found that the accused was still undergoing treatment. He seized burnt clothes of PW.1 and the deceased. It is clear evidence of PW.16 that burnt skin of PW.1 and deceased was seized by the Doctor and he handed over the same under the cover of letter.
41.It is necessary to mention here that the learned counsel for the defence vehemently argued that the Doctor who collected the skin is not examined and the examinations of tissues by RFSL is doubtful. But the contention is not true since PW.16 categorically and specifically stated that the skin of the injured person was collected by the Doctor and he handed over the same under the cover of letter. Such fact is clearly mentioned by PW.16 in seizure report-Ex.P.6. Unless the skin was collected by the Doctor, forwarded by the Police and received by RFSL, the report would not show that the tissue was examined and report was given by RFSL as in Ex.P.33. Basing on the above discussion, the contention of the learned defence counsel can be brushed aside and disbelieved as RFSL report clearly show receipt of skin of the injured persons. Ex.30 is the letter of advise sent to RFSL also show collection of the skin of the injured persons. On 24.4.2014 PW.16 filed a requisition before the Judicial Magistrate Machilipatnam to record Sec.164
Cr.P.C statement of LW.9/PW.6, LW.11/PW.7 and LW.13/PW.8. On 3.5.2014 he received a phone call from Government Hospital Machilipatnam with regard to about discharge of accused. Immediately, he proceeded along with mediators and recorded confessional statement-Ex.P.17 of the accused in Burns Ward at
Government Hospital Vijayawada in the presence of mediators. It is clear evidence that the accused gave confession voluntarily in the presence of mediators. Later, he arrested the accused at 9.30 p.m at Government Hospital
Vijayawada and brought him to the Police Station.
42.Before further discussion, it must be clearly noted that the learned counsel for accused vehemently argued that the accused was prisoner at that 23 time of recording of confession-Ex.P.17 by the Police as such it is invalid. It is necessary to refer evidence of DW.1 who is examined on behalf of the accused. DW.1 clearly and categorically stated that his subordinatenoted the accused as prisoner as they do not know at that time whether the injured is convicted or remand prisoner. Since Police Escort is present, the Doctors might have noted that he is a prisoner. It is also born by the record that the accused was admitted in Government Hospital, Machilipatnam from where he was shifted to Vijayawada Hospital for further treatment of acid burn injuries.
In order to prevent his escape and ensure treatment to accused who sustained acid burn injuries, the police provided escort. It does not mean that he was arrested or remanded to prison by the Court. It clearly appears from the record that police arrested the accused only after he was discharged from Vijayawada
Hospital but not earlier. Therefore, the question of treating the accused as prisoner does not arise. Just because the Doctor noted that he is prisoner, he cannot be treated as a prisoner at that time as there was no order of remand on that date. Thus, there is no force in the argument of defence side.
43.It is also evidence of PW.16 that basing on the confessional statement of accused not only he examined and recorded detailed statement of PW.8, who sold acid to the accused but also PW.16 verified the licence of
PW.8 for selling acid and seized the documents from PW.8. He sent the accused to judicial custody through the Court. On 6.5.2014 he received death intimation-Ex.P.31 from Government Hospital Vijayawada about the death of
Zareena. Hence, he altered Section of law 326-A and 307 to 302 and 326-A
IPC. He sent altered FIR-Ex.P.32 to all the concerned officials on 6.5.14.
Since C.I of Police is engaged with other duties and as per the instructions of his superior officer, he conducted inquest-Ex.P.18 over the dead body of the
Zareena in the presence of mediators at the Martury of the Hospital. At that time he examined and recorded the statements of LW.14 to 18. He forwarded the dead body to the Doctor for conducting Post Mortem Examination. After collecting Sec.164 Cr.P.C statements recorded by Magistrate, Bantumili, wound certificate of accused, LW.1 and P.M.E certificate of deceased Zareena, he handed over investigation to PW.17 as the offence is grave in nature.
44.During his cross-examination the defence side suggested that the accused was arrested at 9.30 p.m on the date of arrest but not shows the 24 earlier suggestion and contention of defence side that the accused was treated as prisoner is totally false. He admitted that the hospital authorities mentioned in discharge summary of the accused that the accused sustained 20% of burn injuries and the accused was brought to the hospital by Head Constable
No.578 of A.R.P. The material contradictions and omissions appearing in the evidence of witness is suggested to the witness PW.16 who recorded the statements of the witnesses. PW.16 stated that PW.1 did not state before him as to who would intervene to stop the marriage of PW.1 with accused and that
PW.1 did not clearly depose after accused was admonished by her mother, accused stopped talking to them, but the same was in the version of other witnesses. PW.1 also did not state before PW.16 that the accused had enquired PW.1 and her mother as to where they were going at 6.00 a.m and mother of the PW.1 scolded the accused when accused enquired PW.1 and her mother as to where from they were returning at 10.00 p.m.
45.PW.16 further stated that even though PW.1 did not state the names of neighbors who came to the scene of offence, she categorically deposed that when they raised cries, the neighbors came to the scene. The omissions appearing in the evidence of PW.2 are also put to the witness by the defence side, the witness stated that PW.2 did not state before him that the accused went into the room to bring bucket along with him but he denied suggestion that PW.2 did not state before him that the accused poured acid on his wife and daughter. He admitted that PW.2 deposed before him that his daughters eyes were burnt and she was not able to see. Similarly, the omissions appearing in the evidence of PW.3 are also suggested to the I.O by the defence side and the witnesses stated that PW.3 never deposed before him in whose presence accused challenged that he would see the end of any person who would intervene in his affairs and he would kill the family members of PW.1 if they do not agree for marriage. PW.3 never stated before PW.16 that accused harassed her parents even after admonishing the accused by her mother. PW.3 never deposed before PW.16 that PW.1 and the deceased came to her house to request her to accompany them to Darga at Kakani.
PW.3 came to know about the incident from the neighbors but not from her father.
25
46.It is not clear evidence of PW.16 that he did not examine the
Doctor separately and who collected burnt skin of PW.1 and deceased. To another question, he stated that he obtained copies of licence and bills from
PW.8. It is clear evidence of PW.16 that since all the Circle Inspectors were engaged in the election Bandobust duty and as per instructions of his Superior, he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased as no in-charge arrangements was made at that time. He opposed a suggestion that when
PW.1 tried to commit suicide by pouring acid on her by herself, accused and deceased tried to save her and in that process they sustained injuries. Basing on the evidence of PW.4 and Doctor-PW.9 coupled with the evidence of mediator for inquest, the suggestion of defence side can be disbelieved and brushed aside as there is a difference of pouring acid and splashing acid. He opposed another suggestion that the police falsely implicated the accused in the present case due to influence of parents of PW.1 is another unreliable and un-believable version of defence side as mother of PW.1 not only received acid burnt injuries, but also died and the father of PW.1 partially paralysis patient and old man. Therefore, parents influencing the police does not arise.
The other suggestion of the accused side is that within 5 minutes of the offence, the accused came to the police station, that he was taken into custody and that the report given by the accused is another concocted version as the accused during his 313 Cr.P.C examination, nowhere stated that he gave report to the police prior to the registering of the present case. It is finally suggested to the witness that due to the publicity and political pressure, the accused is falsely involved in the present case, but such suggestion is denied by the PW.16.
47.PW.17 is the C.I of Police, who took up further investigation from
PW.16 and filed the charge sheet after verifying the investigation done by
PW.16. During his investigation he received RFSL report-Ex.P.33 which discloses that material sent for examination and report showed mixture of nitric acid and sulfuric acid and corrosive chemicals found in items 1 and 1-A. The
Forensic Authorities also found traces of Nitric acid along with Sulphuric acid in items 2, 3, 3-A, 3-B, 4 & 5. After collecting P.M.E. Report, RFSL report and completion of entire investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused under Section 302, 307 and 326-A IPC. The investigation of the police discloses that the accused committed murder of deceased by pouring acid and 26 attempted to murder PW.1 by pouring acid with a view to kill PW.1, he inflicted grievous burn injuries. PW.17 received Sec.164 Cr.P.C statements recorded by learned Magistrate from S.I of Police at the time of taking the C.D file. He filed certified copy of statement of PW.1 and dying declaration recorded by the learned Magistrate along with charge sheet. He denied the suggestion that there is no mention of using of acid to cause burns but PW.9 who issued a wound certificate of the accused clearly mentioned that injuries are grievous in nature and caused due to acid even though the chemical acid is not mentioned by the Doctor. He also stated that in the P.M.E of Zareena, it is mentioned by the Doctor that cause of death was due to complications of injuries. He denied the suggestion that actual facts are suppressed and the accused is falsely implicated in the present case. He opposed another suggestion that his subordinate PW.16 conducted table investigation, but such suggestion is not put to PW.16 during his cross-examination by the defence side.
48.DW.1 who treated the accused/injured sat Vijayawada had deposed that the accused was treated from 30.3.2014 to 3.5.2014. He gave explanation as to why it is mentioned in the record as prisoner. As per his evidence the accused/injured was brought by the Police, as such they might have probably mentioned the particulars of accused as prisoner since a Police
Constable accompanied the accused/injured. He clearly stated that all the entries in the case sheet – Ex.D.1 were written by his subordinate. He categorically stated the word prisoner in the first page of the case sheet was wrongly written by his subordinate and the injuries accused/injured sustained might have been caused due to pouring of acid on other person or spilling of acid on him while pouring is suffice to dismiss the defence version and to answer the earlier question. He further stated that except police persons, no other person accompanied the accused/injured and that at the time of admitting the injured in the hospital, they do not know whether the injured was serving imprisonment or a remand prisoner.
49.In this case PW.1 and deceased Zareena are residents of
Maggala colony, Rajupet, Machilipatnam. PW1 is one of the acid victims and in the same incident her deceased mother received burn injuries. The accused herein poured acid on PW1 and on her mother. The family of PW.1 and her mother were residing in one of the portions of the house of PW.7 and the 27 accused is also residing in one of the room in the house of PW7 as a tenant.
The accused as well as PW1 are doing Rold-Gold works and during that time accused proposed to PW.1 that he would marry PW.1 as his second wife, since his wife is suffering from cancer his wife will die soon. But the family of the deceased did not agree for the proposal. Mother of PW.1 demanded the accused to take divorce from his first wife in order to consider the proposal of marriage in the presence of caste elders, but the accused did not take divorce.
The family of PW1 came to know that the accused falsely informed and misguided them with regard to the illness of his wife even though his wife is hale and healthy and that the accused is also blessed with two children. In that connection the parents of PW.1 admonish and chastised the accused not to move with them and discuss about marriage proposal till he gives divorce to his wife. Accused on hearing such reaction and response, grew wild against
PW1 and her deceased mother suspecting that they will not allow him to marry
PW.1. The available evidence on record further show that on 28.3.2014 during morning hours PW1 and his deceased mother went to Kakani Darga and they returned back on the same night at about 10 PM. During day time the accused went to the house of another daughter (PW.3) of the deceased, for about three or four times, to enquire as to where the women had gone. Since the women did not inform the accused as to where they were going, the accused grew wild.
50.It is in the evidence of PW8 that accused came to his shop and purchased Sulfuric Acid and Nitric acid as appearing in Exhibit-P8. The evidence of PW.8 and Ex.P.8 clearly show that there is intention, preparation and knowledge of what accused is going to do to the women. When the women returned from Dargah, the accused questioned them as to where they had gone and why they were roaming. Since he had strong intention to see their end, he went inside of his room and brought out sulphuric acid bucket and poured acid on the two women with an intention to kill them. Thus, the accused poured acid on PW.1 and the deceased to kill them and in that process the injured women as well as the accused sustained injuries.
Evidence of PW1 to PW4 clearly show that the accused intentionally attacked the two women with acid as PW1 is not marrying the accused and the deceased woman is objecting to it. Evidence of the above witnesses further show that on hearing the galata the neighbours of deceased family gathered 28 and observed that accused throwing bucketful of acid on PW1 and the deceased.
51.The testimony of PW1, PW4 and also some portion of testimony of hostile witnesses clearly show that the accused only threw acid. Therefore the contention of defence side that the injured girl-PW1 poured acid herself as the accused is not marrying her is totally false and concocted story. The act of accused is witnessed by the neighbours and locality people when the acid was thrown on the two women. It is in the evidence of PW.4 that smoke also came out of their bodies and the dress of the two women was also burnt in part and such burnt pieces were collected by the police from the scene of offence along with the seizure of the acid bucket M.O.3. On seeing the injured women raising cries due to acid burns, PW4 and LW.8-Anakapalli Statyanarayana telephoned to 108 ambulance and shifted the injured woman to Government hospital for treatment. The hospital authorities sent an intimation to the Police of
Inuguduru. The S.I of police/PW.16 rushed to Government hospital, recorded the statements of the injured and issued FIR in crime No.84/2014 under section 326A of IPC. It is evidence of PW16 that he altered section of law to
Sec.307 IPC basing on the statements he recorded. The material objects were seized from the scene of offence in the presence of mediators, and the photographs marked on behalf of the prosecution were taken by the police. It is also evidence of PW1 that the medical officer preserved the burnt skin of
PW1, the deceased and the same was forwarded to RFSL for chemical analysis and report. The learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Special
Mobile Court, Machilipatnam recorded the dying declaration of the injured women. Thus, there are two statements in the form of dying declaration recorded by the S.I of Police and also the Judicial First Class Magistrate.
52.The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor in support of his contention relied that Dying Declaration can be referred the following decisions:
(a)In a case between Ravikumar alias Kuti Ravi Vs. State of Tamil
Nadu, reported in 2006 Crl. L.J. 1625 (S.C) the Hon’ble Apex Court held that once the Court is satisfied that the declaration was true and voluntary, it undoubtedly, can base its conviction on dying declaration without any further corroboration. It cannot be laid down as an absolute rule of law that the dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated.
29
The rule requiring corroboration is merely the rule of prudence. If the person recording the dying declaration is satisfied that the declarant was in fit mental condition to make the dying declaration then such dying declaration would not be invalid solely on the ground that the doctor has not certified as to the condition of the declarant to make the dying declaration.
(b) In a case between Tejram Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra (Supreme Court), reported in 2015(2) ALD (Crl.) 15 (SC) the Hon’ble Apex
Court held that at para 25 that the Dying Declaration is admissible not only in relation to the cause of death of the person making the statement and as to circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death, if the circumstances of the said transaction relate to death of another person, the statement cannot be held to be inadmissible when circumstances of ‘his’ death are integrally connected to the circumstances of death of such other person.
At para 27 it was further held that the said statement was duly recorded by the
Magistrate and carries an endorsement by the doctor about her consciousness
and fitness to make a statement. There is no reason for not accepting the authenticity of the version given in the said DD. In the present case, the statement of pouring acid on PW.1, intervention of deceased in the process and her receiving burn injuries resulting in her death are integral part of the same transaction. Thus, the statement which relates to circumstances of transaction resulting in her death being admissible, it can be relied upon to show as to how death Zareena took place. The death of Zareena, PW.1 received the burn injuries in the same incident. Though the version of the accused that it was suicide, the same has been rightly found to be false.
(c)In a case between Madan alias Madhu Patekar Vs. State of
Maharashtra, reported in 2018 (1) ALD (Crl.) 1014 (SC) the Hon’ble Apex
Court held at para 8 that the Courts below have come to the concurrent conclusion only after meticulous consideration of the two dying declarations of the deceased which were recorded by the Spl. Executive Magistrate and Head
Constable which are duly certified by the Doctor. Both the dying declarations are consistent and in clear terms points at the guilt of the accused. The contention that the dying declarations are not voluntarily made, cannot be given weightage for the reason that the Special Executive Magistrate has recorded the dying declaration in accordance with law after obtaining due permission from the Doctor. The other declaration recorded by the Constable is also consistent in respect of revelations and points at the guilt of the 30 accused.Basing on the ratio laid in the above decisions it can be clearly said that there is no doubt and suspicion to rely on the dying declaration of the deceased woman and the statement given by the other injured/PW1.
53.In the present case PW.13 recorded 164 statements of Pws.6, 7 &
8. Since the witnesses turned hostile by stating that they never depose before a Magistrate and basing on the petition filed by the leaned APP, the Judicial
First Class Magistrate was examined. He stated that the above witnesses
stated before him as appearing in the statements. It is evidence of PW.16 that he altered section of law to 326A, 307, 302 of IPC basing on the death intimation he received. It is also evidence of the S.I.P that the C.I.P was engaged in election duty as such he proceeded with the investigation as per the instructions and directions of his superior officers as no in-charge arrangements were made. It is in the evidence of the SIP that he conducted inquest Ex.P.18 in the presence of mediators and examined the witnesses and relatives at the time of conducting inquest. Basing on the evidence of PW16, mediators and PW1, it can be clearly held that the accused was also undergoing treatment at the Government hospital Machilipatnam and
Vijaywada along with the injured women but in different Ward. Hence, PW.16 went to Government hospital Vijaywada to arrest the accused on 3.5 2014 in the presence of the mediators and after his discharge. At the time the SIP recorded the confessional statement of the accused which was signed by the mediators and accused.
54.The learned counsel vehemently argued that the confessional statement is inadmissible as itnever lead to recovery but the investigating officer categorically stated basing on such confessional statement only they collected the receipts Ex.P8 from PW.8 as such confessional statement can be admitted. On careful reading of the testimonies of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, no doubt there appears some discrepancies inconsistencies and the material improvements. The discrepant portion marked in the evidence of Pws.2 & 3 will not go to the root of the case and they are not serious in nature, as such they are ignored. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor contended that such discrepancies would occur in the evidence of true witness due to lapse of time. In order to draw strength to his version he relied on the following decisions:
31
(a)In a case between Pathan Kareemulla and another Vs. State of
Andhra Pradesh, reported in 2016 (1) ALD (Crl.) 537, our Hon’ble High held at para 5 that only when one knows that end is not too far away, the call of the conscience makes them to come out openly and cleanse the impure conduct exhibited till then. Therefore, it can be said in clear opinion that there is no contradictions whatsoever in the contents of statements of PW.1 and deceased. At para 6 it is further held that no one will be willingly committing himself to a medico legal case.”
(b)In Sukhdev and others Vs. State of Bihar (2002(1) ALD (Crl.) 36 S.C) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that minor contradictions in the evidence of witness cannot be used to jettison the evidence in its entirety and corroboration cannot be expected with mathematical niceties in criminal cases.
(c)1998 (8) SCC 649. In a case between Rammy Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh, the Hon'ble Apex Court held at para 24 that when an eye witness is examined at length, it is quiet possible for him to make some discrepancies.
No true witness can possibly escape from making some discrepant details.
Perhaps an untrue witness who is well tutored can successfully make his testimony totally non discrepant, but Courts should bare in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of witnesses or so incompatible with the credibility of the version that the Court is justified in jettison his evidence. But too serious view to be adopted on more variations falling in the narration of the incident (either as between two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach in judicial scrutiny. In the light of the above rulings and the ratio laid therein the minor discrepancies can be ignored.
55.The prosecution also clearly proved the death of the deceased and the injuries sustained by PW1 was due to acid attack. The evidence of the
Doctor-PW.15, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued PME-Ex.24 clearly opined that the deceased appeared to have died due to burns and its complications. PW9 who examined and treated the injured-PW1 issued a wound certificate Ex.P.10 and opined that the girl sustained grievous injuries caused due to acid. It is necessary to mention here that during the same transaction the accused also sustained acid injuries when he threw the acid on the two women. Ex.P.11 clearly proves that the the accused was also treated for acid burns. From the record it clearly appears that the investigating agency forwarded the collected material objects to RFSL 32
Vijaywada for examination and report. Thus, the testimonies of PW1 to 4 clearly and consistently show that the perpetrator of the offence is the accused who with an intention to kill the two women splashed bucketful of acid on the two woman.
56.The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor relied on the following decision in support of his contention that testimony of hostile witness can be relied.
(a)In a case between Devraj Vs. State of Chhattisgarh (downloaded copy of judgment), it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court at para 31 of the judgment whether the testimony of hostile evidence that has come on record should be relied upon or not. The Hon'ble Apex Court referred the earlier judgment of the Hon'ble Superme Court in Bhagwan Singh Vs. State of Haryana (1976) 1 SCC 389, wherein it was laid down that even if a witness is characterized as a hostile witness, his evidence is not completely effaced.
The said evidence remains admissible in the trial and there is no legal bar to base a conviction upon his testimony, if corroborated by other reliable evidence. The similar view was also taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Khuji @ Surendra Tiwari Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1991) 3 S.C.C 627, the
Court after referring to the authorities in Bhagwan Singh (supra) Rabindra
Kumar Dey Vs. State of Orissa (1976) 4 SCC 233 and Syad Akbar Vs.
State of Karnataka (1980) 1 SCC 30, opined that the evidence of such a witness cannot be effaced or washed off the record altogether, but the same can be accepted to the extent it is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof. Basing on the above decisions and ratio laid therein, it can be concluded that the hostile witness also stated that the woman sustain burn injuries due to acid attack and they never denied involvement of the accused in the commission of offence. Thus, the relevant portion in the evidence of hostile witness is admissible and can be taken into consideration to conclude that the accused not only caused acid injuries to the two women but also received acid injuries in the same transaction.
57.In order to substantiate his contention, the learned A.P.P. relied on the following decisions:
(a)In a case between Dasari Gottam Veeranna and another Vs.
State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 2017 (2) ALD (Crl.) 1027, our Hon’ble 33
High Court held at para 12 that the testimony of an injured witness enjoys highest credibility, for, not only his presence at the scene of occurrence is proved but also he is not expected to shield the real assailant and falsely implicate innocents.
(b) In a case between Simran @ Meena Khan Vs. State, on 27.5.2016
Delhi High Court (down loaded copy) the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held at para 16 that the evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exists, his/her testimony is not to be discarded lightly. The evidence of an injured witness must be given due weightage being a stamped witness, thus, his/her presence cannot be doubted. His/her statement is generally considered to be very reliable and it is unlikely that he/she will spare the actual assailant in order to falsely implicate someone else. The testimony of an injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he/she has sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence and this lends support to his/her testimony that he/she was present during the occurrence. Thus, the testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law. The witness would not like or want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to implicate a third person falsely for the commission of the offence. Thus, the evidence of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are grounds for the rejection of his/her evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein.
58.In the present case, the accused had taken a drastic step of securing deadly corrosive substance in large quantity and poured the same on the victim. The evidence of PW.8 and Ex.P8 clearly proves such fact. The victim herein is a younger girl of 26 years of age with the pretty face but accused made her face hideous and also caused heavy damage to the both eyes, nose and other vital parts of the body of the victim girl. By merely looking at the face after the act incident, it can be clearly said that her physical and mental trauma after the incident cannot be explained in few sentences and words. At present PW1 cannot come out of the house and do work like any other girl in the streets as her nose, lips, face forehead, hands and the body was reduced to mangled flesh. For no fault of her she became a prisoner in her own house for a lifetime and depending on the family members for each and every necessity. A young beautiful girl who has now to carry all along her entire life the hideous face, who has lost hopes forever of leading 34 normal life, including loss of chance of marriage, the revered dream of every girl, that is to become a mother, but no fault of her and this is only because of the inhuman and barbaric act of the accused. It must also be mentioned here the very appearance of the victim (who was present in the Court Hall at the time of the trial and hearing) is traumatising.
59.The learned Addl. P.P relied on the following decision to highlight the point that the punishment shouldbe proportionate.
In a case between Ravada Sasikala Vs. State of Andhra
Pradesh and another, reported in 2017(1) ALD (Crl.) 363 (S.C) (down loaded copy)the Hon’ble Apex Court held at para 9 that sense of individual mercy absolutely ignoring the plight and the pain of the victim; a young girl who had sustained an acid attack, a horrendous assault on the physical autonomy of an individual that gets more accentuated when the victim is a young woman. Not for nothing, it has been stated stains of acid has roots forever. At para 14 it is observed that the fundamental purpose of imposition of sentence is based on the principle that the accused must realize that the crime committed by him has not only create a dent in the life of the victim but also a concavity in the social fabric. At para 17 it was further held that the paramount principle that should be the guiding laser beam is that the punishment should be proportionate. It is the answer of law to the social conscience. In a way, it is an obligation to the society which has reposed faith in the Court of law to curtail the evil. While imposing the sentence it is the Courts accountability to remind itself about its role and the reverence for the rule of law. It must evince the rationalized judicial discretion and not an individual perception or a moral propensity. If in the ultimate eventuate the proper sentence is not awarded, the fundamental grammar of sentencing is guillotined and law does not tolerate it; society does not withstand it; and sanctity of conscience abhors it. The old saying the law can hunt ones past cannot be allowed to be buried in an indecent manner and the rainbow of mercy, for no fathomable reason, should be allowed to rule. The conception of mercy has its own space but it cannot occupy the whole accommodation. While dealing with grant of further compensation in lieu of sentence, the Court ruled that increase in fine amount or grant of compensation under the Court would be a justified answer in law.
Money cannot be the oasis. It cannot assume the centre stage for all redemption. Interference in manifestly inadequate and unduly lenient sentence 35 is the justifiable warrant, for the Court cannot close its eyes to the agony and anguish of the victim and, eventually, to the cry of the society. At para 19 it is further observed that one cannot remain a total alien to the demand of the socio-cultural milieu regard being had to the command of law and also brush aside the agony of the victim or the survivors of the victim. Society waits with patience to see that justice is done. There is a hope on the part of the society and when the criminal culpability is established and the discretion is irrationally exercised by the Court, the said hope is shattered and the patience is wrecked. Thus the above observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court is squarely applicable to the case on hand and the same is kept in mind while awarding sentence. While dealing with the question what is just and proper sentence,
Hon'ble Supreme Court considered some of the observations by great Jurist
and Hon'ble Supreme Court itself. Therefore it is apt to extract relevant paragraph from the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in
Simran @ Meena Khan Vs State, held at para 44 that Lord Denning while appearing before the Royal Commission on 'Capital Punishment' expressed the view that “Punishment is the way in which society express its denuncitation of wrongdoing and in order to maintain respect for law, it is essential that punishment inflicted for grave crimes should reflect revulsion felt by the great majority of the citizens. For them it is a mistake to consider the object of punishment as being deterrent or reformative or preventive and nothing else.
The truth is that some crimes are so outrageous that society insists on adequate punishment because the wrong does deserves it, irrespective of whether it is deterrent or not.”
60.The law is well settled that the evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, his/her testimony should not to be discarded lightly taken. The evidence of an injured witness must be given due weightage being a stamped witness. Thus, his/her presence cannot be doubted. The statement of PW1 and the deceased before the police and the Magistrate is considered to be reliable and truthful as it is unlikely that the injured woman will spare the actual assailant in order to falsely implicate the accused. The testimony of an injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he/she has sustained injuries at the time of occurrence. Thus the testimony of the injured witnesses accorded a special status in law. The witness would not like or want to let the actual assailant go unpunished merely to implicate a person falsely for the commission of offence.
36
The learned Addl. P. P further argued that accused involved in acid attack should be given rigorous imprisonment as per law to send a clear message to the society that the offenders in such cases cannot escape from the clutches of law.
61.In the present case the evidence of PW1 and the dying declaration of the deceased should be relied upon as there are no serious contradictions and disturbances therein. In the instant case the defence side miserably failed to place any convincing evidence that is required to discredit an injured witness and false implication of the accused. The evidence of the
Doctor who examined the injured person, conducted autopsy over the deceased and treated the accused with the burn injuries cannot be brushed aside lightly as they had given full details of the nature of injuries sustained by the injured person. The fact that the accused also sustained acid burn injuries in the same transaction, at the same time and place of occurrence, lend support to the prosecution case even though the injured-PW1 and other witnesses are subjected to lengthy cross-examination, nothing was elicited by the defence side to discard their testimonies as such their testimonies can be relied. As noted earlier merely because a witness is declared hostile, whole of his evidence need not be thrown out but can be accepted by the courts after finding new corroaboration and considering the same with the care and caution as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in Rohatash Kumar V.
State of Haryana, 2013 (7), SCALE 472.
62.Coming to quantum of compensation, the long line of judicial pronouncements of Honble Supreme Court recognised in no uncertain terms a paradigm shift in the approach towards victims of crimes who were held entitled to reparation, restitution or compensation for loss or injury suffered by them. As observed by Supreme Court in Dayal Singh Vs. State of
Uttaranchal ((2012) 8 SCC 263), the criminal trial is meant for doing justice to all the accused, the society and the victim. Then alone can law and order can be maintained. The Courts do not merely discharge the function to ensure that no innocent man is punished, but also that the guilty man does not escape.
The Code of Criminal Procedure of 1898 contained a provision for restitution in the form of Section 545, which stated in Sub-Clause 1(b) that the Court may direct “payment to any person of compensation for any loss or injury caused 37 by the offence when substantial compensation is, in the opinion of the Court, recoverable by such person in a Civil Court”.
63.In Hari Singh Vs. Sukhbir Singh and others (1988) 4 SCC 551),
Hon'ble Supreme Court lamented the failure of the Courts in awarding
compensation to the victims in terms of Section 357(1) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. The Court recommended to all Courts to exercise the power available under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure liberally so as to meet the ends of justice. The Court said that Sub-section(1) of Section 357 provides power to award compensation to victims of the offence out of the sentence of fine imposed on accused. It is an important provision but Courts have seldom invoked it. Perhaps due to ignorance of the object of it. It empowers the Court to award compensation to victims while passing judgment of conviction. In addition to conviction, the Court may order the accused to pay some amount by way of compensation to victim who has suffered by the action of accused. It may be noted that this power of Courts to award compensation is not ancillary to other sentences but it is in addition thereto.
This power was intended to do something to reassure the victim that he or she is not forgotten in the criminal justice system. It is a measure of responding appropriately to crime as well of reconciling the victim with the offender. It is, to some extent, a constructive approach to crimes. It is indeed a step forward in our criminal justice system. We, therefore, recommend to all Courts to exercise this power liberally so as to meet the ends of justice in a better way.
This view was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in K.A.Abbas H.S.A Vs.
Sabu Joseph ((2010) 6 SCC 230), Ankush Shivani Gaikwad Vs. State of
Maharashtra (2013) 6 SCC 770), Mohd. Haroon Vs. Union of India (2014) 5
SCC 252), Abdul Rashid Vs. State of Odisha & Ors. ((2014)1 ILR Crl.L.J.
202).
64.After the insertion of Section 326A and 326B in Indian Penal Code by Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 2013, Section 357B and 357C were inserted in Criminal Procedure Code by Act 13 of 2013 providing for compensation in addition to fine under Section 326A and treatment to victims.
The same reads as under:
“357B. Compensation to be in addition to fine under section 326A or section 376D of Indian Penal Code. - The compensation payable by the 38
State Government under Section 357A shall be in addition to the payment of fine to the victim under section 326A or section 376D of the Indian Penal
Code.
357C. Treatment of victims.- All hospitals, public or private, whether run by the Central Government, the State Government, local bodies or any other person, shall immediately, provide the first-aid or medical treatment, free of cost, to the victims of any offence covered under section 326A, 376, 376A, 376B, 376C, 376D or section 376E of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), and shall immediately inform the police of such incident.”
65.Basing on the available evidence it can be finally concluded that there is clear, cogent, consistent and corroborating evidence to conclude that the accused only poured on PW1 and the deceased with a view to kill them.
The witness for prosecution PW1 to 4 and 8 to 17 clearly stated in their evidence that the accused intentionally, wantonly, and knowingly attacked the two women with acid bucket. Through the above witness the prosecution fairly proved motive of the accused to attack the two women with acid as PW1 was not agreeing for marriage. Accused suspected that the parents of PW1 may perform marriage of PW.1 with another person and deceased women was insisting the accused to take divorce from his first wife. Besides that it also appears from the record that accused was suspecting that PW1 was moving with others. In the light of above facts and circumstances and basing on evidence of eye-witnesses, it is proper to answer the point in favor of the prosecution.
66.In the instant case, the victim (PW.1) has not placed anything on record as to how much money she spent for her treatment. However, one cannot lose sight of the fact that such restorative surgeries cast a fortune.
Moreover, the compensation is not to be awarded only in terms of the physical injury, the Court has also to take note of victims inability to lead a full life and to enjoy those amenities which is being robbed of her as a result of the acid attack. Therefore, this Court deems it fit and proper to recommend the case to the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Krishna, Machilipatnam with a direction to grant maximum compensation to the victim as per the provisions,
G.Os and circulars existing at present by considering the physical disability of acid victim. It is impressed upon the Secretary, D.L.S.A, Krishna, 39
Machilipatnam to decide the quantum of compensation and its disbursal to the complainant within sixty days of the receipt of the judgment. The office is directed to send a copy of the judgment forthwith to the Secretary, D.L.S.A,
Krishna, Machilipatnam.
67.In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offences under
Sections 302, 307 and 326-A of I.P.C., and he is convicted under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C for committing the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 326-A of I.P.C.
Dictated to the Stenographer Gr-III, transcribed and typed by him,
corrected directly in laptop and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 30th day of July, 2018.
Sd/- Dr.S.S.S.Jayaraju
IX ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,
(FTC), KRISHNA: MACHILIPATNAM.
68)Having found the accused guilty for the offences committed under
Sections 302, 307 and 326-A of I.P.C., he is questioned about the quantum of sentence to be imposed against him.
Sd/- Dr.S.S.S.Jayaraju
IX ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,
(FTC), KRISHNA: MACHILIPATNAM.
40
69)Considering the facts and of the mitigating circumstances, submission of the learned counsel for accused to consider the present case under exception (1) of Sec.300 of IPC, I feel the submission of the learned counsel cannot be considered at this stage. I feel the following punishment is sufficient to meet the ends of justice. The accused herein deliberately and intentionally committed the offences under Secs.302, 307 and 326-A of IPC. The accused is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence he committed under
Sec.302 I.P.C and he is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five months. The accused is sentenced to under go imprisonment for 10 years for the offence he committed under Sec.307 of I.P.C for attempting to murder
PW.1 and he is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for five months. The accused is also sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 10 years for the offence he committed under Sec.326-A of I.P.C for pouring acid on deceased and PW.1 and he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the accused shall under go simple imprisonment for a period of one year.
All the above sentences shall run concurrently. The fine amount paid by accused shall be given to the victim-PW.1 towards medical expenses and treatment, besides the compensation to be awarded by District Legal Services
Authority, Machilipatnam. M.Os.1 to 6 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. Since the offences committed by the accused are grave in nature in the eye of law and in public view, the Provisions of P.O.Act and Sec.360 of Cr.P.C are not applied. The bail bonds of accused and sureties shall be in force till appeal time is over. Accused is informed of his right to appeal to the Hon'ble
High Court and availment of free legal aid from State Legal Services Authority,
Hon'ble High Court, Hyderabad. Free copy of the judgment is given to the
Accused.
Dictated to the Stenographer Gr-III, transcribed and typed by him,
corrected directly in laptop and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 30th day of July, 2018.
Sd/- Dr.S.S.S.Jayaraju
IX ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,
(FTC), KRISHNA: MACHILIPATNAM.
41
Appendix of Evidence
Witnesses examined
For Prosecution.
P.W.1: Md. Hazida
P.W.2: Md. Yusuf
P.W.3: Sk. Asma
P.W.4: Ganta Nalini Kanth
P.W.5: Sk. Khadar Vali
P.W.6: Abdul Hazi
P.W.7: Sammeta Ramakrishna
P.W.8: Khaja Ameeruddin
P.W.9: Dr. A.B.S.Srinivasarao
P.W.10: Md.Ibrahim
P.W.11: Abdul Rafi
P.W.12: Sk. Karimullah
P.W.13: Ch.L.Srinivasa Rao, JFCM
P.W.14: Smt. A.Anitha, JFCM
P.W.15: Dr. Jhansi Lakshmi
P.W.16: B.Tulasidhar, S.I of Police
P.W.17: K. Sai Prasad, C.I of Police
For Defence:
D.W.1: Dr. M.V.N. Prasad
Exhibits marked on behalf of Prosecution
Ex.P.1: Toe mark of PW.1 on the statement recorded by Judicial Officer.
Ex.P.2: Toe mark of PW.1 on the statement recorded by Police.
Ex.P.3: Signature of PW.3 on the statement of PW.1 (Ex.P.2)
Ex.P.4: Sec.161 Cr.P.C., Statement of P.W.6
Ex.P.5: Signature of PW.6 in his Sec.164 Cr.P.C., Statement, but it is wrongly typed as Sec.164 Cr.P.C statement of PW.6
Ex.P.6: Sec.161 Cr.P.C., Statement of P.W.7
Ex.P.7: Signature of PW.7 in his Sec.164 Cr.P.C., Statement, but it is wrongly typed as Sec.164 Cr.P.C statement of PW.7
Ex.P.8: T/c of Bill dt.28.3.14
Ex.P.9: Signature of PW.8 in his Sec.164 Cr.P.C., Statement, but it is wrongly typed as Sec.164 Cr.P.C statement of PW.8
Ex.P.10: Wound Certificate of PW.1
Ex.P.11: Wound Certificate of Accused
Ex.P.12: Requisition to Magistrate to record dying declaration of Md.Zareena.
Ex.P.13: Requisition to Magistrate to record dying declaration of Md.Hazeeda.
42
Ex.P.14: Intimation to OPPS, Machilipatnam
Ex.P.15: Mediators Panchanama dt.29.3.14 at 8.00 a.m
Ex.P.16: Mediators Panchanama dt.29.3.14 at 11.00 a.m
Ex.P.17: Confessional Statement of accused.
Ex.P.18: Inquest Report on the dead body of deceased Md.Zareena.
Ex.P.19: Sec.164 Cr.P.C., Statement of PW.6
Ex.P.20: Sec.164 Cr.P.C., Statement of PW.7
Ex.P.21: Sec.164 Cr.P.C., Statement of PW.8
Ex.P.22: Dying declaration of Md.Hazeeda.
Ex.P.23: Dying declaration of Md.Zareena.
Ex.P.24: P.M.E report.
Ex.P.25: FIR in Cr.No.84/14 of Inaguduru P.S
Ex.P.26: Rough Sketch
Ex.P.27: Photographs 12 in number
Ex.P.28: Corresponding C.D to Ex.P.27 photos.
Ex.P.29: Section of law alteration memo.
Ex.P.30: Letter of advice sent to RFSL
Ex.P.31: Hospital intimation to S.I of Police Inaguduru P.S
Ex.P.32: Altered F.I.R
Ex.P.33: R.F.S.L Report.
Exhibits, marked on behalf of Defence
Ex.D.1: Relevant portion marked in Sec.161 Cr.P.C., Statement of P.W.2 (Rendu Kallu kanapadani paristhitilo vunnadi)
Ex.D.2: Relevant portion marked in Sec.161 Cr.P.C., Statement of P.W.3 (Chuttuprakkala vari dwara telusukoni)
No. of M.Os marked on behalf of Prosecution
M.O.1 – Burnt Panjabi Top belongs to PW.1
M.O.2 – Green colored bottom pant belongs to PW.1
M.O.3 – Plastic Bucket
M.O.4 – Buraka belongs to deceased
M.O.5 – Plastic tin/can
M.O.6 – Burnt pieces of cloths of deceased and PW.1.
No. of M.Os marked on behalf of Defence: - NIL -
Sd/- Dr.S.S.S.Jayaraju
IX ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
(FTC), KRISHNA: MACHILIPATNAM. //TRUE COPY// Superintendent, IX Addl. District & Sessions Court, Krishna, Machilipatnam