TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 72
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he road near Karappadam and tried to pour acid into her mouth from a can by holding her cheeks with force and when the victim resisted, he poured acid over her head causing acid burns on her head, left cheek, neck and back of her body and the accused is thereby alleged to have committed the offences as aforesaid. 3. On the basis of Exhibit P1, First Information Statement of PW1, Exhibit P15 FIR was registered by PW16 on 20.11.2005. PW18, Circle Inspector, completed the investigation and filed the final report. When the accused appeared before the trial court, after hearing both sides, charge was framed against him for the offences under Sections 341 and 307 IPC and when the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 18 and marked Exhibits P1 to P16 and MOs 1 to 3. No witness examined from the side of the accused; but, Exhibits D1 to D2(a) were marked. 4. After hearing both sides and considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigoro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e hospital in a car and on their way to the hospital, she also pointed out the place of occurrence to her father. 9. PW1 identified her signature in Exhibit P1, First Information Statement. According to PW1, earlier the accused had approached her and her family members with a proposal to marry her and then she rejected the proposal as she wanted to continue her studies. Subsequently, while PW1 was alone in her house, the accused again approached her and questioned her why she is not agreeing for the marriage. Then, the witness told the accused that she did not like the said marriage and that she is going to study Nursing. At that time, the accused threatened her that if she fails to give consent for the marriage before 20th November, he will kill her or harm her in such a way that no one else will marry her. PW1 also stated that when she asked the accused to leave her house, he refused to do so and thereupon, she closed the door and went to the house of the elder brother of her father. 10. PW2 turned hostile to the prosecution stating that he has not witnessed the occurrence alleged in this case. The evidence of PW3 shows that the accused and PW1 are known to her; but, she wo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to marry his daughter, he discussed the matter with his wife and daughter and then his daughter informed him that she does not want to marry at that time and she wanted to study further and subsequently when the accused again approached him, he told the accused that his daughter is not interested in the marriage. According to PW6, subsequently the accused reached his house and threatened his daughter that he will kill her, if she fails to agree for marriage before 20th November. 14. PW7 is the driver of the car in which the victim was taken to the hospital on the date of occurrence. The evidence of PW7 shows that the parents of PW1 also accompanied her to the hospital on the date of occurrence. PW8 is the grandmother of PW1. According to PW8, on 20.11.2005, their neighbour Ousephettan informed them about the incident and when she came out of the house, she saw PW1 coming along with her parents from the southern side and at that time, the dress of PW1 was wet with water and when she asked PW1 as to what happened, PW1 informed her that Kootatty Sunny poured acid on her body. According to PW8, she noticed burn injuries on the head, face, cheeks and back of PW1. PW8 also deposed t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st Information Statement of PW1 while she was admitted in Chalakudy St. James Hospital on 20.11.2005. PW16 is the Assistant Sub Inspector who registered Exhibit P15 FIR on 20.11 2005 on the basis of Exhibit P1 FIS. PW17, Circle Inspector, conducted the investigation of this case from 03.12.2005 and PW18 is the Circle Inspector who completed the investigation and filed the final report. The evidence of PW18 and Exhibit P13, report of chemical analysis, shows that traces of formic acid was detected in item Nos. 1, 4 and 6. Items 1 and 4 are the dress of the victim and item No.6 is the dry grass and soil collected from the scene of occurrence. 20. The learned Senior counsel for the appellant argued that as per the prosecution case, immediately after the occurrence, PW1 ran into the house of PW3, Sheema, and it was PW3 who poured water over the body of PW1. But, the evidence of PW3 would show that no such incident occurred in her house at 9.15 a.m., on 20.11.2005. It is pertinent to note that PW3 has admitted that the accused is her neighbour. According to PW3, along with her mother, she went to the church at about 9.15 a.m. and returned only at 11 a.m. However, it is pertinent to n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he accused proposed another marriage for the accused, she herself poured formic acid over her head by collecting the same from a shed in the adjacent property. 24. Even though the defence has a case that PW1 herself poured acid over her head and that she obtained acid from a shed adjacent to her property, there is no evidence in this case to indicate that the occurrence was in a rubber estate or shed adjacent to the house of PW1 as suggested by the defence. The evidence of PW13, Circle Inspector, and Exhibit P6, scene mahazar, shows that he recovered MO2, can, and MO3, burnt grass from the field near the place of occurrence and Exhibit P10, forwarding note, and Exhibit, P13 report of the chemical analysis, clearly shows that traces of formic acid was detected in the dry grass collected from the scene of occurrence and therefore, I find that the prosecution has succeeded in proving that the place of occurrence is not the shed or rubber estate as suggested by the defence. 25. The evidence of PW1 regarding the occurrence is supported by the clear medical evidence of PWs 10 and 11, doctors who examined PW1 on the date of occurrence itself. PW10 examined PW1 at 10.15 a.m., on 20.1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hypertechnical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter, would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. It is well settled that when material witness is examined at length, it is possible for him to make some discrepancies and no true witness can possibly escape from making some discrepant details. 29. It is pertinent to note that the other material witnesses who supported the prosecution case regarding the occurrence are the father and grandmother of PW1 and their evidence clearly shows that immediately after the occurrence, PW1 reached their house and informed them that the accused poured acid over her head and I find merrit in the argument of the learned Senior Public Prosecutor that the said act on the part of PW1 is so connected with the fact in issue so as to form part of the same transaction and therefore, the evidence of PWs 6 and 8 in this regard is admissible under Section 6 of the Evidence Act and the same corroborates the evidence....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iation of the entire evidence, I find 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, I find no reason to interfere with the findings of the trial court in this regard. 33. The learned Senior counsel for the appellant also argued that the ingredients of the offence under Section 307 IPC is not attracted, in as much as there is no evidence to show that the accused committed the act with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the Section. The learned counsel for the victim and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor argued that the accused poured formic acid over the head of the victim and further, the evidence of PW1 would show that he also uttered to kill her and attempted to pour acid into her mouth and therefore, it cannot be held that the accused was not having the intention or knowledge as contemplated under Section 307 IPC. Whether there was intention to kill or knowledge that death will be caused is a question of fact and would depend on the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he prosecution witness. Whether the accused person intended to commit murder of another person would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. To justify a conviction under Section 307 IPC, it is not essential that fatal injury capable of causing death should have been caused. Although the nature of injury actually caused may be of assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be adduced from other circumstances. The intention of the accused is to be gathered from the circumstances like the nature of the weapon used, words used by the accused at the time of the incident, motive of the accused, parts of the body where the injury was caused and the nature of injury and severity of the blows given, etc." 38. In State of M.P. v. Kanha [(2019) 3 SCC 605], it is held as follows: "13. The above judgements of this Court lead us to the conclusion that proof of grievous or life - threatening hurt is not a sine qua non for the offence under S.307 of the Penal Code. The intention of the accused can be ascertained from the actual injury, if any, as well as from surrounding circumstances. Among other things, the nature of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... committed the act with the intention to kill PW1 and with the knowledge that death will be caused and therefore, I find that the trial court rightly convicted the accused for the offence under Section 341 and 307 IPC. 41. The learned Senior counsel for the appellant argued that the occurrence was in the year 2005 and considering the lapse of time, a lenient view is required in the matter of sentence. The learned counsel for the victim and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor pointed out that the minimum punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid as per Section 326A IPC, inserted by the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013 with effect from 03.02.2013, is 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. The occurrence in this case was prior to the insertion of Section 326A IPC. 42. 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 offe....