Under Section 307 IPC,"Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs.60,000/-, in default of
payment of fine to further undergo two years’ RI.
Under Section 326A IPC,"Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.60,000/-, in default of
payment of fine to further undergo two years’ RI.
part of the incident, the accused is alleged to have brought an acid bottle with him. He allegedly poured the acid on to the victims in order to take",
revenge regarding the first police report. On going through the evidence of injured Munawwar Hussain (PW.10), who received the dangerous and",
grievous injuries in the main incident, it is clear that he did not allege that any incident took place in the morning at 9 O’ clock or that he and his",
father Mohd. Iqbal had lodged a report against the accused at the Police Station Khanda Falsa. Thus, the said allegation of PW.1 Mohd. Iqbal, the",
first informant is not substantiated/corroborated. The main incident involving the assault by acid took place at about 9:30 am. The injured Munawwar,
Hussain (PW.10), the first informant Mohd Iqbal (PW.1), Abdul Wahab (PW.4) and Gayasudin (PW.5) all alleged that the accused came to their",
shop and poured acid upon them. The allegation regarding the victim having received corrosive burn injuries has been well established by the evidence,
of Dr. Amit Srivastava (PW.7) who examined the injured and issued the injury report (Ex.P/6) & medical opinion (Ex.P/7) of injured Munawwar,
Hussain. As per the statement of medical officer Dr. Amit Srivastava (PW.7) who treated Munawwar Hussain and issued the medical report,
(Ex.P/7), the injury No.1 was opined to be grievous in nature. The injured had four lesions on his body, all caused by corrosive substance and thus, we",
are of the definite opinion that the injuries were inflicted with the intention of killing/maiming the injured. Fortuitously, the injured survived the attack",
and lived to tell the tale.,
In this background, we are of the firm opinion that the findings recorded by the trial court in the impugned judgment that the accused-appellant",
intentionally inflicted corrosive acid burns to the injured is well founded and based on sound appreciation of evidence available on record. Thus, the",
conviction of the accused-appellant as recorded by the trial court for the offences under Sections 307 & 326A IPC does not warrant any interference,
whatsoever by this Court.,
Now coming to the aspect of the sentences awarded by the trial court to the accused for the above offences. In this regard, we have gone through the",
evidence of the prosecution as well as the defence witnesses. First and foremost, as we have found that the claim of the complainant that he lodged a",
report of looting against the accused-appellant at the PS Khanda Falsa and that the incident at hand was perpetrated by way of revenge against such,
action, is not substantiated as no such corresponding report/roznamcha entry was proved on record during the evidence of the material prosecution",
witnesses. Furthermore, the son of the complainant i.e., injured Munawwar Hussain (PW.10) himself did not state that any such previous report was",
lodged by him or by his father on the same day. Thus, the genesis of the occurrence, as stated by the first informant is falsified.",
The accused has taken two fold defences. The first being that the complainant party was the aggressor and threw the acid on him and second being,
that he is having an hole in his heart due to which he is not physically capable to make the assault. However, we find that the theory that the",
complainant party was the aggressor and assaulted the accused first, appears to be a sheer afterthought and totally untenable. There is absolutely",
nothing on record to indicate why the complainant party would indulge into such act. Furthermore, numerous independent eye-witnesses whose names",
have been mentioned above in addition to the first informant and the injured stated that it was the accused who was having an acid bottle in his hand,
with which he poured acid on the two injured. Thus, the defence theory regarding the complainant party being the aggressor is totally unsubstantiated.",
As per the evidence of the defence witnesses i.e, the accused himself DW.1 and Dr. Narendra Vaishnav (DW.3), the accused was having corrosive",
burns injuries on his head, neck, right and left forearms. However, we feel that the possibility of these injuries having been caused when the",
complainant party was grappling with the accused in an attempt to save themselves from the attack is probablized from the attending circumstances.,
Nonetheless, we feel that the significant corrosive burn injuries suffered by the accused himself in the incident and the fact that as per the evidence of",
Dr. Adil Majid Belim (DW.2) who deposed that the accused was suffering from a hole in his heart, are mitigating circumstances to be considered",
while quantifying the sentences awarded to the accused appellant. The offence under Section 307 IPC carries imprisonment which may extend to 10,
years and fine, imprisonment for life or to such punishment as hereinbefore mentioned. The offence under Section 326-A IPC carries minimum",
imprisonment of 10 years which may extend to imprisonment for life. Considered in the light of peculiar facts noted above, we feel that the ends of",
justice would be served by reducing the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to the accused by the trial court on both the counts to 10 years’,
R.I. and a fine of Rs.2,50,000/- each (total Rs.5,00,000/-). In default of payment of fine, the accused shall further undergo 2 years’ RI. Both the",
substantive sentences shall run concurrently. The fine upon being realized shall be paid to the injured Munawwar Hussain.,
The appeal is partly allowed in these terms. Record be returned to the trial court forthwith.,
