2025 (11) TMI 72 - HC - Indian Laws

Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence under Sections 341 and 307 IPC upheld; bail cancelled, surrender ordered

SUNNY, S/O. DEVASSY Versus STATE OF KERALA AND PRIYA CHAKKETH MOODA THOMAS

HC dismissed the appeal and confirmed conviction and sentence under Sections 341 and 307 IPC. The court found the victim's testimony reliable and ... Challenge to conviction and sentence imposed for the offences u/s 341 and 307 IPC - specific case of the accused is that he is falsely implicated in this case after PW1 attempted to commit suicide by consuming acid kept in a shed in the property adjacent to her house - HELD THAT:- It is well settled that normal discrepancies in evidence are those which are due to normal errors of observations and normal errors of memory due to lapse of time and such discrepancies and errors will always be there, however honest and truthful a witness may be. It cannot be disputed that material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person - In this case, even though PW1 was seriously cross examined, the core spectrum of the case remained intact throughout the cross examination and it is found that the evidence of PW1 regarding the occurrence is natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution and that the same is supported by clear medical evidence. The defence has a case that PW1 herself poured acid over her head for the reason that the family of the accused made arrangements for his marriage with another girl. But, the evidence in this case clearly shows that PW1 has rejected the marriage proposal of the accused and then the accused threatened her with dire consequences, if she fails to give consent for her marriage with the accused before 20.11.2005. The accused has not adduced any evidence in support of the defence version and the findings in Exhibit P13, chemical analysis report, gives credence to the version of PW1 that she was attacked by the accused on the road near to a field from where MO2, can, and MO3, burnt grass, were recovered. Therefore, on a careful re-appreciation of the entire evidence, it is found that the evidence of PW1 regarding the occurrence is natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution. The evidence of PW1 regarding the occurrence is also supported by the evidence of PWs 6 and 8 and the medical evidence of PWs 10 and 11 and therefore, there are no reason to interfere with the findings of the trial court in this regard. In State of M.P v. Kashiram [2009 (2) TMI 937 - SUPREME COURT], the Honourable Supreme Court held that for attracting conviction under Section 307 IPC, it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted and that the Section makes a distinction between the acts of the accused and its result, if any. The court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the section. It is well settled that the court must not only keep in view the rights of the victim, but also the society at large while considering the imposition of appropriate punishment and merely on account of lapse of time, the sentence cannot be reduced without considering the nature of offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed. In Hazara Singh v. Raj Kumar [2013 (4) TMI 1016 - SUPREME COURT], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the cardinal principle of sentencing policy is that the sentence imposed on an offender should reflect the crime he has committed and it should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence. Considering the facts and circumstances, seriousness and gravity of the offences committed by the accused and there are no reason to interfere with the sentence imposed by the trial court and therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court as against the accused for the offences under Section 341 and 307 of IPC are confirmed. The bail bond executed by the accused/appellant shall stand cancelled and he is directed to surrender before the trial court forthwith to undergo sentence, failing which the trial court is directed to execute the sentence without fail - appeal dismissed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether the testimony of the injured witness is reliable and sufficient to prove the occurrence despite hostile statements by several eyewitnesses and minor discrepancies in evidence. 2. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed offences punishable under Section 341 IPC (wrongful restraint) and Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder) - specifically, whether the requisite intention or knowledge for Section 307 IPC was established. 3. Whether the defence version that the injured witness self-inflicted the injuries (by pouring acid from an adjacent shed/rubber estate) is supported by evidence, and if not, whether the scene recovery and chemical analysis negate that defence. 4. Whether, on the facts, interference with the quantum of sentence is warranted because of the long delay between offence (2005) and trial, and whether subsequent statutory amendments (Section 326A IPC, 2013) affect appropriate sentencing. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Reliability of injured witness and effect of hostile witnesses / discrepancies Legal framework: Injured witness testimony has heightened evidentiary value; normal discrepancies not touching core facts do not invalidate testimony. Evidence Act, Section 6 (acts forming part of same transaction) for admissibility of contemporaneous statements to close relatives. Precedent treatment: Followed established principles that injured witness testimony is to be relied upon unless material contradictions exist; authorities cited confirm injured witness carries built-in guarantee of presence and requires compelling reasons for rejection. Minor inconsistencies must be discarded but do not vitiate core testimony. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined the injured witness's (victim's) account, contemporaneous medical treatment times, and supporting testimony of immediate relatives (father, grandmother). Although several independent witnesses (PWs 2-5) turned hostile or contradicted earlier statements, the injured witness's core narrative remained consistent through cross-examination. Medical records and timing (examinations within about an hour after alleged occurrence) support presence of burns consistent with pouring of acid. Admissions by PW3 that she may be deposing under influence of accused undermined defence reliance on her hostile testimony; absence of cross-examination on that admission limited benefit to accused. The Court applied principles distinguishing normal discrepancies from material contradictions and held that peripheral inconsistencies did not affect the core version. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - injured witness testimony, corroborated by immediate relatives and medical evidence, can sustain conviction despite hostile or inconsistent peripheral witnesses; normal discrepancies will not displace core credible testimony. Obiter - general observations on doctors' duties and natural non-disclosure in shock are explanatory but align with precedent. Conclusions: The injured witness's testimony is reliable and, together with statements by close relatives and medical evidence, establishes the occurrence; hostile witnesses' contradictions are not sufficient to create reasonable doubt. Issue 2: Proof of offences under Sections 341 and 307 IPC - intention/knowledge for Section 307 Legal framework: Section 341 IPC (wrongful restraint) requires proof of wrongful restraint. Section 307 IPC requires proof that the accused did an act with intention or knowledge that it was likely to cause death; conviction under Section 307 does not require that the injury inflicted was in itself ordinarily sufficient to cause death - intent/knowledge may be inferred from overt acts, words, weapon, motive, body part targeted and surrounding circumstances. Precedent treatment: Followed a line of Supreme Court authorities holding that (i) intent may be inferred from circumstances and overt acts, (ii) grievous or life-threatening hurt is not a sine qua non for Section 307, and (iii) words coupled with overt dangerous act can sustain an inference of intent/knowledge. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court evaluated contemporaneous utterances attributed to the accused (threats to kill), forceful holding of the victim's cheek, attempt to pour can contents into mouth and actual pouring over head, the use of acid (a potentially lethal substance), and motive (animosity after rejected marriage proposal). The Court found these overt acts, coupled with expression of intention to kill, support inference of intention/knowledge as required for Section 307. Medical evidence indicated 25% burns corroborating severity but the Court emphasized that actual fatality need not have occurred to attract Section 307. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where an accused forcefully restrains an injured person, utters threats to kill and discharges a potentially lethal substance (acid) at the victim, intent/knowledge under Section 307 can be inferred and sustain conviction. Obiter - discussion of various authorities explaining the concept of intent/knowledge in Section 307 is expository. Conclusions: The prosecution proved wrongful restraint under Section 341 and attempt to murder under Section 307: the accused had requisite intent/knowledge and committed overt acts in execution thereof; trial court conviction for both offences is upheld. Issue 3: Credibility of defence case of self-infliction and scene/shed hypothesis Legal framework: Defence bears evidential burden to raise plausible alternative explanation; prosecution must negative that where circumstantial or scientific evidence points to accused's culpability. Scene mahazar, recovery of can and burnt grass, and chemical analysis are relevant circumstantial/forensic links to place and manner of occurrence. Precedent treatment: The Court relied on established principles that circumstantial/scientific evidence corroborating victim's account strengthens prosecution case and may displace speculative defences absent supporting evidence. Interpretation and reasoning: The defence alleged self-infliction by taking acid from a shed/rubber estate adjacent to the house. Investigative evidence (scene mahazar, recovery of can and burnt grass from field near place of occurrence), chemical analysis detecting traces of formic acid on the victim's dress and on the recovered dry grass/soil, and witness testimony locating the place of occurrence (victim pointing out place to father and police) collectively contradicted defence geographic narrative. No evidence supported existence of a shed/rubber estate at recovered scene. The Court found that prosecution successfully disproved the alternative hypothesis and that forensic findings corroborated the victim's version that attack occurred on the road/field rather than in a shed. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - absence of evidentiary support for self-infliction hypothesis, coupled with positive forensic recovery at scene, justifies rejecting the defence theory. Obiter - remark that doctors focus on treatment, not assailant identity, is explanatory. Conclusions: Defence case of self-infliction and shed/rubber-estate occurrence is not established; circumstantial and chemical evidence corroborates the prosecution's scene and mode of attack. Issue 4: Sentence - effect of delay and applicability of post-offence statutory amendments Legal framework: Sentencing must balance rights of victim, society and offender; lapse of time is a mitigating factor but does not automatically warrant reduction. Subsequent penal amendments apply prospectively unless expressly retrospective; minimum mandatory punishments inserted after the offence cannot ordinarily be applied retroactively to increase punishment. Precedent treatment: The Court relied on principles that sentencing should reflect gravity of offence, consider aggravating/mitigating factors, and that sentence cannot be reduced solely for delay without regard to crime's nature and manner. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted argument for leniency because of delay but observed that the offence involved acid attack with grave consequences; the statutory minimum for acid offences (Section 326A, 2013) was enacted after the offence and thus not applicable to increase punishment. Considering gravity, manner of commission, victim impact and established aggravating facts, the trial court's substantive sentence (10 years RI under Section 307 plus fines; sentence under Section 341) was considered proportionate and not interfered with. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - delay alone is insufficient to merit reduction of sentence where offence is grave and adequately punished; post-offence harsher minimum provisions do not operate retrospectively to increase or alter sentence imposed for earlier offences. Obiter - references to sentencing philosophy are explanatory. Conclusions: No interference with sentence; delay does not warrant reduction given seriousness and manner of offence; subsequent statutory minimums do not apply retrospectively to increase punishment.