Suraj Bhan v. State of Haryana

Ms. Hemlata Balhara, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present revision petition has been preferred by Suraj Bhan, who was tried in case FIR No. 17 dated 11.2.1994 registered at Police Station Sadar, Ambala, under Sections 324 and 326 IPC. The Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala City, held petitioner guilty of offence under Sections 324 and 326 IPC. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 324 IPC. The petitioner was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, for offence under Section 326 IPC. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for 15 days. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrent. Aggrieved against the same, petitioner has filed an appeal. Criminal Revision No. 135 of 2004 2 The Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, upheld the conviction, maintained the sentence and dismissed the appeal. In the present case, FIR Ex.PB/1 was recorded on the basis of statement made by the prosecutrix (the name of prosecutrix is withheld to protect her identity) aged 16 years. The prosecutrix stated that she was resident of village Machonda and had passed seventh class. She was having three sisters. The marriage of elder sister was fixed for 20.2.1994. Suraj Bhan, resident of the village, whenever used to meet the prosecutrix, he used to profess his love for the prosecutrix. The accused further used to say that he would only marry the prosecutrix and will not allow any other person to marry her. On

11.2.1994 at 6.00 P.M., prosecutrix accompanied by her Bua (father's sister) had gone to the fields to answer the call of nature. When they reached near the fields of Bhaja Singh, the accused was already present there and was holding a bottle in his hand. On seeing the prosecutrix, the accused held her and poured acid on her face. The complainant/prosecutrix suffered burn injuries on her head, right side of her face and left hand. The accused, after throwing the acid, decamped from the spot. The complainant was brought to her house by his Bua and later she was shifted to hospital at Ambala Cantt. for treatment, wherefrom she was referred to the hospital at Ambala City. The above said FIR was investigated and report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted. Initially, offence was made out under Section 324 IPC. Since the complainant remained admitted in the hospital for more than 20 days, lateron offence under Section 326 IPC was also added. Criminal Revision No. 135 of 2004 3 The trial Court framed charges against the petitioner under Sections 324 and 326 IPC. The petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution commenced its evidence and examined Dr.Multan Singh, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Ambala City. This witness stated that on 3.3.1994 he gave his opinion that patient (prosecutrix) was having burns on the right side of her face including eyelids and forehead. These burns were likely to result in disfigurement of her face. He proved his opinion Ex.PA. Dr. Shashi Tripathi, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Ambala Cantt., appeared as PW.5. She stated that on 11.2.1994 at 7.30 P.M., she medicolegally examined the prosecutrix aged 17 years and found that acid burns were present on the face of prosecutrix involving forehead, and both her eyelids upper 2/3rd of face. There were multiple trickling marks downwards from the lower margins of the burns. Red line demarcation at the burn margins were present. Right eye conjunctiva congested, oedematous. Cornea was clear. Burn marks were also present on the right wrist and the doctor gave his opinion and declared the injuries as grievous. PW.6 Dr. A.K. Garg, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Ambala City, had also examined the prosecutrix on 11.2.1994 when she was referred from Civil Hospital, Ambala Cantt. to City Hospital at Ambala. This doctor gave following findings regarding the eyes of prosecutrix:- “Both lids of the right eye were swollen. Palpaberal fissure was narrow. Conjunctival chemosis were present. Corneal oedema was Criminal Revision No. 135 of 2004 4 present at 4 O'Clock position as depicted in the diagram. Anterior segment was normal. On 17.2.94 the patient was examined again and was found to have nebular corneal capacity at 4 O'Clock position which was not obstructing the visual field. Vision in the right eye was 6/9 and the fundus was within normal limits. My opinion in this regard is Ex.PG”. Complainant/prosecutrix appeared as PW.2. She reiterated as to what was stated in the FIR. Letters written by her to the accused were put to her. It was suggested that she was after Suraj Bhan that he should marry her. She denied the letters and they were brought on record as Mark A and Mark B. Regarding the ocular version, complainant was supported by Gurdev Kaur alias Bobby, Aunt of the complainant. The other witnesses who appeared, proved various facets of the investigation. Thereafter statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied all the incriminating circumstances. The accused gave his version in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and stated that he had been falsely implicated due to enmity as the prosecutrix intended to marry him but he had refused and many boys of the village were after her. The accused examined M.N. Sharma, Document Expert, Patiala, as DW.1, to prove the letters Mark A and Mark B written by the prosecutrix. Prem Nath, Head Teacher, Government Primary School, Criminal Revision No. 135 of 2004 5 Machonda, appeared as DW.2. He stated that the prosecutrix had passed fifth class from the school on 31.3.1992. Both the Courts below placed implicit reliance upon the testimony of prosecutrix PW.2 and Gurdev Kaur alias Bobby PW.3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are many discrepancies, contradictions and improvements in the testimony of prosecutrix PW.2 and Gurdev Kaur alias Bobby PW.3. This Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction cannot do re-appreciation and re-appraisal of the testimony of the witnesses. Both the Courts below have taken into consideration alleged contradictions and discrepancies and have not held them to be material to discard the testimony of witnesses. Therefore, once both the Courts below held that testimony of witnesses aspire confidence, this Court will not examine the argument raised by counsel for the petitioner in revision petition. It is further submitted that no offence under Section 326 IPC is made out as due to influence, injured had prolonged his stay at the hospital, therefore, a simple admission in the hospital for more than 20 days will not bring the offence under the ambit of Section 326 IPC, unless it is proved on the record that the injured/complainant was deprived to resume day-to-day avocations. This argument is to be rejected. A perusal of the medical evidence reveals that there were injuries to the eyes. Even though no visual loss had occurred but oedema and conjunctiva were affected. Therefore, it can be reasonably held that a person who is deprived from his eye sight for more than 20 days is not able to resume his day-to-day avocations. It can be safely inferred that the prosecutrix was unable to follow her ordinary pursuits. Therefore, her admission in the hospital for Criminal Revision No. 135 of 2004 6 a period of more than 20 days will fall under Clause Eighthly of Section 320 IPC. Thus, the offence will fall under Section 326 IPC. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no independent witness was joined by the prosecution. It was 6.00 P.M. In the evening. The complainant was accompanied by her Aunt when they had gone to ease themselves. At that time, availability of the witness to the occurrence was not expected especially when the acid is to be thrown by the lover whose advances have been spurred in secrecy. It is stated that petitioner is facing a protracted trial since 1994. This Court cannot become oblivious of the fact that by the act of the accused, disfigurement of the face of prosecutrix was caused. The complainant has suffered a permanent injury which will always make her rue her fate, whenever she will stand before the mirror. A prayer of counsel for the petitioner that some reduction in sentence be granted, normally would not have been entertained. But since the petitioner is in corridors of the Court for more than 16 years, this Court is of the view that some benefit of protracted trial can accrue to the petitioner. Therefore, sentence of two years, awarded by the trial Court and affirmed by the lower Appellate Court, is reduced to one year and nine months rigorous imprisonment, for offence under Section 326 IPC. With the observations made above, present revision petition is disposed of. February 16, 2010 “DK” (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge