Case Note & Summary
The judgment pertains to a criminal appeal filed by the accused against the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court for offences under Sections 326A and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case was that the accused, whose marriage proposal to the victim (PW.8) was rejected, threw acid on her on 31.01.2014 with the intent to disfigure her and prevent her from marrying anyone else, also causing injuries to accompanying person PW.3. The trial court convicted the accused and sentenced him to life imprisonment and fines. In the appeal, the appellant's counsel argued that the identification of the accused was doubtful because he wore a helmet at the time of the incident; independent witnesses turned hostile; the acid seller's evidence was unsupported; there was delay in lodging the FIR; and the evidence was inconsistent. The State argued that the victim and eyewitness gave credible testimony, the acid purchase was corroborated, and the FSL report confirmed the presence of sulphuric acid on the victim's clothing and the glass used. The High Court framed two points for determination: whether the conviction under Section 307 IPC and Section 326A IPC was justified. The provided excerpt of the judgment does not include the court's analysis or final decision; it breaks off mid-sentence before the conclusion. Thus, the outcome of the appeal is not ascertainable from the text.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Sessions Judge was justified in convicting the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and Section 326A of IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life?
Law Points
- Proof of acid attack under Section 326A IPC
- attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC
- appreciation of ocular evidence
- corroboration by FSL report
- identification of accused wearing helmet
- hostile witnesses
- delay in FIR
- life imprisonment
- victim compensation
Case Details
2021 LawText (KAR) (07) 12
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.512/2016(C)
B. Veerappa, V. Srishananda
S G Rajendra Reddy (Appellant), S. Rachaiah, HCGP (Respondent)
State by Malebennur Police, Davanagere
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction and sentence for acid attack
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence under Sections 326A and 307 IPC and to be acquitted or the sentence reduced.
Filing Reason
The appellant contended that the identification was doubtful because the accused wore a helmet at the time of the incident, independent witnesses turned hostile, the acid seller’s evidence did not support prosecution, there was delay in FIR, and the evidence was insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Previous Decisions
The II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Davangere, in S.C.No.86/2014, convicted the appellant on 25.02.2016 and sentenced on 26.02.2016 to life imprisonment and fines under Sections 326A and 307 IPC.
Issues
Whether the Sessions Judge was justified in convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 307 IPC?
Whether the Sessions Judge was justified in convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 326A IPC?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the victim and witnesses stated the accused wore a helmet obscuring his face, making identification doubtful; independent witnesses (PW5, PW15) did not support prosecution; acid seller (PW13) did not support; there was delay in FIR; evidence inconsistent; prayed for acquittal or reduction of sentence.
Respondent-State argued that PW8 and PW3 gave consistent and credible evidence; PW13 admitted selling acid; FSL report confirmed sulphuric acid on clothes and glass; trial court correctly appreciated evidence and convicted; appeal should be dismissed.
Judgment Excerpts
the accused has made proposal to marry the victim-PW.8 and her family members did not give consent for the same, thereby, the accused felt disgusted and with an intention to take revenge on her, he decided that she should not marry anyone else and to disfigure her face or to take her life (Para 2)
the accused came on his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA 17/EL 5938 with an intention to disfigure her face so as to prevent her from marrying anybody, he threw acid on her face, back, hands and caused grievous corrosive injuries (Para 2)
PW.13, who sold acid to the accused has specifically deposed on oath that on the request made by the accused that he has to put acid to the roots grown in the jetty in front of his house, he has given one bottle of acid (Para 12)
Ex.P21, the FSL report clearly depicts ... The presence of sulphuric acid was detected in article Nos.1 to 6 (Para 13)
Whether the learned Sessions Judge is justified in convicting the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- with default clause ? (Para 14)
Whether the learned Sessions Judge is justified in convicting the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 326A of IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine off Rs.10,00,000/- with default clause in the facts and circumstances of the case? (Para 14)
Procedural History
Based on complaint by PW.11, Malebennur Police registered FIR No.24/2014 under Sections 326A, 326B, 307 IPC. After investigation, charge sheet was filed. The case was committed to the Sessions Court. On 21.01.2014, charges were framed under Sections 307, 326A, 326B IPC; accused pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined PW1 to PW24, marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P24 and MOs 1 to 8. Defence marked Ex.D1. Statement under Section 313 CrPC recorded; accused denied. By judgment dated 25.02.2016 and sentence dated 26.02.2016, the trial court convicted and sentenced the accused. The accused filed the present appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 326A, 326B, 307
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 374(2), 313
