State of Uttaranchal vs Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate, for the appellant.

Pithoragarh. On 4.8.1999, Km. Swati Garg lodged an FIR (Ex. Ka-2) with the averments that Gaurav Sharma used to cast aspersions and lewd comments upon her while coming to and returning the college. She complained about it to her family members. On this, her brother Ajay Kumar Garg protested with the father of Gaurav Sharma on 3.8.1999. Enraged with this, on the next day i.e. on 4.8.1999 at 11.45 am, when the complainant was sitting in her classroom, Gaurav Sharma came there and poured over her body a bottle of petrol stating that he would 2 finish her by setting her on fire as she was too complaining of him. However, she was rescued by her classmates and other students of the college, who snatched the matchbox from the hand of Gaurav Sharma. She also complained about it to her Principal. With these averments, FIR Ex. Ka-2 was lodged by Km. Swati Garg on 4.8.1999 at 12.50 pm. Chick report thereof is Ex. Ka-3.

3. Km. Swati was immediately taken for medical examination at District Hospital, Pithoragarh where she was examined by Dr. Brijmohan Singh Tolia (PW1), who found that burning sensation was present on the eyes, scalp and face of the victim. Smell of petrol was also present on her hair, dupatta and upper garments. He, accordingly, prepared the medical report Ex. Ka-1.

4. Investigation of the case was entrusted to SSI Vishram Singh (PW6). During the course of investigation he recorded the statements of the witnesses. On the date of incident itself, the Investigation Officer inspected the spot and prepared the site plan Ex. Ka-5. He also recovered a matchstick and one plastic bottle of Pepsi brand containing some petrol and prepared the recovery memo Ex. Ka-6. After completion of the investigation, he submitted the chargesheet Ex. Ka-8.

5. Learned Sessions Judge framed the charge against the accused appellant for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 511 IPC. It appears that it was subsequently amended to Section 307 IPC.

6. Prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as six witnesses. PW1 is Dr. 3 Brijmohan Singh Tolia, who medically examined the victim and prepared the medical report as stated above. PW2 is the victim/complainant Km. Swati Garg. PW3 is Omprakash Devlal, a student of the same college where the victim and accused were studying. PW4 is Pradeep Bhatt, an eyewitness of the incident. PW5 is Ajay Kumar Garg, brother of the victim and scribe of the FIR. PW6 is SSI Vishram Singh, who conducted the investigation and submitted the chargesheet.

7. Thereafter statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 CrPC, who denied the allegations made against him and claimed trial. However, in defence, he did not produce any documentary or oral evidence.

8. PW1 is Dr. Brijmohan Singh Tolia, who had examined the victim Km. Swati Garg on the date of incident i.e. 4.8.1999 at 1.30 pm and prepared the medical report Ex. Ka-1. In his statement, he has proved the injuries recorded by him in the said medical report.

9. The victim PW2 Km. Swati Garg in her statement has reiterated the averments made by her in the FIR Ex. Ka-2. She has stated that on 4.8.1999, at

11.45 am, she was sitting in her classroom for attending the period of Political Science. The class teacher was yet to come. Meanwhile, Gaurav Sharma came there along with a bottle containing some liquid material. He told her that she always complained about him. Today, he would finish her for good and he sprinkled the petrol on her body and tried to lit her up, but her classmates, namely, Km. Pratibha Bisht, Neha Joshi and other students sitting outside, somehow rescued her and snatched the 4 matchbox from Gaurav Sharma. Thereafter she lodged the report of the incident on the same day at 12.50 pm. She was cross-examined at length, but nothing has come in her testimony, which may create any doubt her statement.

10. PW3 Omprakash Devlal, who was the student of the same college at the relevant time, has stated that on 4.8.1999, at about 11.45 am, he came to spot on hearing the screams. Many boys and girls had assembled there. But at that time, the victim and accused were not present there. Subsequently, he saw them in the chamber of the Principal.

11. PW4 Pradeep Bhatt has stated that on

4.8.1999, he had gone to the said college to collect his marksheet. It was quarter to twelve in the morning when he was talking to some other persons in the college he heard the screams of a girl. He rushed to the spot where Km. Swati and the accused Gaurav Sharma were present. Gaurav Sharma had a bottle of Pepsi brand containing petrol in his hand. He had poured the petrol on the body of Km. Swati. He took out a matchbox and when he was in (cid:147)finishing position(cid:148), the other students present there pushed him and snatched the matchstick from his hand. The bottle also fell down. Thereafter Km. Swati went towards the chamber of the Principal. Thus, this witness has corroborated the statement of victim Km. Swati. Despite searching lengthy cross-examination, the defence Counsel failed to elicit any material to shatter and discredit the testimony of this witness. His statement is reliable and natural. 5

12. PW5 Ajay Kumar Garg is the scribe of FIR. He is also the brother of victim. He has stated that her sister used to complain about the conduct of Gaurav Sharma. He had also raised this matter with the father of the accused appellant.

13. PW6 is SSI Vishram Singh, who conducted the investigation, during course of which, he recorded the statement of the witnesses, prepared the site plan, recovered the bottle of Pepsi in which the accused had brought the petrol and matchstick from the spot, and after competition of the investigation, he submitted the chargesheet.

14. Learned Counsel for the accused appellant did not argue on the merits of the case. He only pleaded mercy of the Court on the grounds, inter alia, that accused was 20 years and 10 days old at the time of incident and, now, he is working as a Software Engineer. He submitted that the sentence of six months(cid:146) simple imprisonment may be modified to the period already undergone by the accused. He further submitted that amount of fine may be enhanced.

15. I have gone through the entire material available on record. The case against the accused appellant is proved beyond any shadow of doubt. Ocular version of the prosecution is also corroborated by the medical evidence. The accused attempted to commit a horrendous crime in full public view in broad daylight, but is evident on the face of the record that the court below has taken a lenient view and has convicted the accused for a lesser offence under Section 323 IPC, whereas he was tried for the offence under Section 307 6 IPC. Punishment imposed on the accused appellant is also moderate.

16. In the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to accept the prayer of the learned Counsel for the appellant. There is no merit in this appeal and it is liable to be dismissed.

17. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. Impugned judgment and order dated 28.3.2001, passed by the Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh in Sessions Trial No. 46/1999, State v. Gaurav Sharma, is affirmed. Conviction and sentence imposed on the accused appellant are hereby upheld.

18. Let a copy of this judgment and order be sent to the trial court for its compliance. Lower court record be also sent back. Prabodh (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.)