Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CommittedOn:29/01/2014
Receivedon
:29/01/2014
Decidedon
:08/09/2016
Duration
:YMD
020710
INTHECOURTOFSESSIONFORGREATERMUMBAI
ATMUMBAI
(PRESIDEDOVERBYADDITIONALSESSIONSJUDGE
MS.ANJUS.SHENDE,COURTROOMNO.18)
Exh.No.215
SESSIONSCASENO.311OF2014
ShriUjjwalNikam
SpecialPublicProsecutor
TheStateofMaharashtra
(ThroughDCB,CID,UnitD1,
Mumbai)
BandraRailwayPoliceStationCrime
number120of2013)
C.C.NO.295/PW/2014 ....Complainant
VERSUS
Ms.ApekshaVora
Advocate
AnkurNarayanlalPanwar
Age:26years,R/o.C/3,BBMB,DESU
Colony,Narela,Delhi
....Accused
.........ooooo.........
OFFENCESPUNISHABLEUNDER
SECTIONS302,326AAND326B
OFTHEINDIANPENALCODE,1860.
JUDGMENT:(ORAL)
(Dated8thSeptember,2016)
.........
Atrocities againstwomanisnotunknowntothesociety.Itisa
creationofman.Itoccursinallcountriesandinallsocieties.Everythinghas
gainedspeedinmodernizationsoiswiththeinnovationwiththetools
of violence used in crime. Some of them are a hundred percent
effective,easytouse,rapidinactionwithinstantresultsandconvenientfor
escape of perpetrators. Use of acid to commit a crime has geared up in
innovativeways.Aciduseisnotnewincrimes,butitsjustthatthewayof
doing crime has been reformed. Now it is revolutionized to carnage the
innocentlives.Whatisshockingisthattheseattackshappeninbroadday
light,inbusyandcrowdedplaces.Thestoryinprosecution'scasereflectsone
ofsuchincidentsofacidattack.
2.
Theaccusedisarraignedbytheprosecutiontofacethetrialfor
theoffencespunishableundersections302,326Aand326BoftheIndian
PenalCode,1860(hereinafterreferredtoasI.P.C.).
3.
Theprosecutioncase,ascontainedinthechargesheet,runsas
under
VictimPreetiAmarsinghRathi,ahailing fromNarela atDelhi,
was selected as Nursing Officer in Military Nursing Services held through
ShortServiceCommission.ShewassupposedtojoinNavalOfficeatColaba
asSecondLieutenant.On01/05/2013alongwithherfatherAmarsinghRathi,
heruncleVinodkumarDahiyaandherauntSunitaDahiyaPreetiboardedthe
Garibrath Express for Mumbai from Nizamuddin Station. They arrived in
Mumbai on 02/05/2013. The train reached Bandra Terminal at 8.05 a.m.
AftershealightedfromthetrainandwasgoingalogwithAmarsinghRathi,
ViniodDahiyaandSunitaDahiyasomebodytappedherfrombackside.When
sheturnedbacktheunknownattacker,wearingthescarfonhisfaceandthe
caponhishead,flungsomeliquidonherfromonecontainerhewasholding
andfledfromtheplatform.Herfather,maternalauntandpassersbyalsogot
thespiltofliquid.SameerShaikhwasabottlepickeronplatform.Hewas
neartheboggiefromwhichPreetihadalighted.Asfewdropsfellonhim,he
shoutedbyaskingSalim@Salman,anotherbottlepickerwhowasahead,to
catchthemiscreantwhofled.Thefluidstartedburningtheskinassoonas
fellonthevictimandothers.Father,uncle,auntofPreetiandotherpeopleon
platform sustained injuries out of the acid spill. Amarsingh Rathi and
VinodkumarDahiyaimmediatelyliftedPreetiandcarriedtoStationMaster's
office.AmemowasissuedtotakePreetitoBhabaHospital.Thevictimwas
carried by Vinodkumar Dahiya and Sunita Dahiya to Gurunanak Hospital
withtheassistanceofpoliceconstable.Itwasthenearesthospital.Whilethe
otherinjuredweresenttotheBhabaHospitalbyrailwaypolice.Therailway
policeinformedtherailwaypoliceinspector.Thepoliceofficerdrewthespot
panchanamaofthespotoftheincidentshownbySameerShaikhafterreturn
ofSameerfromhospital.Aplastic'dabba'(container)wasfoundonspotwith
someleftoverfluid.Thefluidspreadedonthegroundandsoilwascollected
withthehelpofcottonswab.Thereweresomeburntpiecesofclothes.Allthe
articlesweresealedandseizedunderspotpanchanama.
4.
police report against unknown person on which FIR no.36 of 2013 was
registeredundersections307,326Aand326BofI.P.C.Preetiwasnotable
tospeakduetosevereburnsonherfaceandneck.Duetothelackofmedical
facilities for treatment and management of Preeti, the doctor from
GurunanakHospitalreferredhertothehospitalhavingfacilitytomanageher
condition.ShewastakentotheMasinaHospital.TheconditionofPreetiwas
seriousduetothesevereacidburns.Immediatelytreatmentbeganforher
injuriesconsideringthemasacidburn.
5.
ThepoliceofficerapproachedPreetiatMasinaHospitaltoget
herstatementrecordedbutshecouldnotspeak.Shecouldcommunicatewith
herparentsanddoctorsbywritingonpiecesofpaper.Shecouldnotseethe
faceoftheperpetratorwhoflungacid.Asketchoftheaccusedwasdrawnon
thebasisofthedescriptiongivenbythewitnesses.On04/05/2013Pawan
Kumar made a phone call to the sister of Preeti namely Tannu to make
inquiryaboutthe healthof Preeti.Atthattimehe was atRohataktaking
education of Bachelor of Technology. Amarsingh Rathi was informed by
Tannu.ThesamewasinformedtotheinvestigatingofficerandPawankumar
was suspected as the perpetrator. He was arrested by the police on
09/05/2013.AftershowingthesketchbyscribblingonpaperPreetidisclosed
thattheperpetratormaybeSatyam,AnkurorPawankumar.Satyamwasalso
interrogated.Preetihadnoloveaffairnorenmitywithanybody.Preetihad
ruledoutthepossibilitythatitwasPawankumarasshehadnottalkedtohim
sincelasttwoyears.
6.
surgeriesasshehadTracheooesophagealFistulacausingholeinwindpipe
andfoodpipe.Shewasundercontinuousmedicaltreatmentbytheteamof
doctorstill18/05/2013.Herconditionwasdeteriorating.On18/05/2013for
herfurthertreatmentbythespecialists,shewasshiftedtoBombayHospital.
Shewascontinuouslyonventilator.InBombayHospital,shewastreatedby
theteamofspecialistdoctors.However,shesuccumbedtotheinjuriesafter
thecardiacarreston01/06/2013.DuetothedeathofPreeti,Section307
wasconvertedtosection302ofI.P.C.Postmortemofdeadbodywasdoneby
theteamofdoctors.SamplescollectedduringpostmortemweresenttoFSL
forCAandhistopathology.AfterthereceiptofCAreports,finalcauseofdeath
was opined as 'Septicemia due to acid burn (unnatural)'. The police was
clueless as no information was received to show that Pawankumar was
involved in the crime. The railway police was unable to find any strong
evidence showing his involvement. Amarsingh Rathi also made inquiry by
himselfandfoundthatPawankumarwasatRohatak,intheStateofHaryana,
at the time of incident. He filed an affidavit before the court stating that
PwankumarwasatRohtakatthetimeofincident.Astheinvestigationwas
not progressing in proper direction a writ petition was preferred by
AmarsinghRathiandtheinvestigationwastransferredtoDCB,CID,Mumbai.
7.
senttoDelhitomakeinquiryofrailwayticketsofPreetiandofherrelatives.
IntheinquiryofrelativesofPreetii.e.,NituSolankinameofAnkurPanwar,
thepresentaccusedappeared.Whenpoliceapproachedhimhegaveevasive
answerstothequeriesregardinghiswhereaboutson01.05.2013.Therefore,
hewasbroughttoMumbaion17.01.2014.Hewasgivingevasiveanswers
duringinterrogation.Hewashavingburninjuriesonhisboththehands.At
Mumbaihewasarrested.AccusedwassenttotheJ.J.Hospitalformedical
examinationtogetopinionregardingtheoldhealedscarsonhisforearms.
Thosewerefoundascausedbysecondarydropsofacid.Whilehewasin
custodyhisvoluntarystatementundersection27ofIndianEvidenceActwas
recorded.Athisinstancetheplacefromwherehehadobtained acidwas
discovered.ThesellerofacidMukeshBhargavinformedthataccusedAnkur
hadobtainedacidsamplefromhimonthegroundthathehadstartedthe
businessinthenameandstyle'AnkurBatteries'.AfterthearrestofAnkur
Panwarinvestigationgainedmomentum.
8.
Thedetailsofmobilephoneoftheaccusedwerecollected.At
earlystageofinvestigationthestatementsofeyewitnessesandrelativesof
PreetiRathihadbeenrecorded.AfterthearrestofAnkurPanwarthe test
9.
WhenPreetiwasadmittedinMasinaHospitalherclothes and
10.
againstAnkurtherefore,Pawankumarwasdischargedandchargesheetwas
filed against the accused Ankur Panwar in the court of Additional Chief
MetropolitanMagistrate,37thCourt,Esplanade,Mumbaion09/04/2014.
11.
12.
Whentheaccusedwasproducedbeforethecourt,afterhearing
Special Public Prosecutor Shri Ujjwal Nikam and defence counsel I have
framedthechargeagainsttheaccusedfortheoffenceundersections302,
326Aand326BofI.P.C.videExh.7Itwasreadoverandexplainedtothe
accused.HeabjuredtheguiltandclaimedtrialvideExh.8
13.
Prosecutionplacedrelianceontheevidenceofall37witnessesto
proveitscase.Onthecloserofprosecutionevidencestatementofaccused
wasrecordedundersection313ofCodeofCriminalProcedure,1973(inshort
Cr.P.C.).Hedeniedincriminatingcircumstancesappearingagainsthiminthe
evidence. The defence is of simplicitor denial and false implication at the
behest of the father of the victim and police machinery to save the real
accused. No defence witness is examined in defence. By way of written
statement Exh.207A accused reiterated his defence that due to oil burn
injuries the old healed scars were caused and that Preeti died of medical
negligence.
14.
determinationandIrecordmyfindingsthereonforthereasonsstatedbelow:
Points
Findings
Yes
Yes
No
10
Convictedasperfinal
order.
REASONSFORFINDINGS
15.
witnessesoutofthecitedwitnessesinthelistasunder:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
(26)
(27)
(28)
(29)
(30)
PW1
PW2
PW3
PW4
PW5
PW6
PW7
PW8
PW9
PW10
PW11
PW12
PW13
PW14
PW15
PW16
PW17
PW18
PW19
PW20
PW21
PW22
PW23
PW24
PW25
PW26
PW27
PW28
PW29
PW30
VasudevChatursinghBaberwal
Exh.27
AnandAnilSandhe
Exh.33
ShreeyaDeepakSawant
Exh.38
RajuAdalatYadav
Exh.40
MahadevRaghuSapkal
Exh.44
SameerShamshuddinShaikh
Exh.46
Salim@SalmanNurulislamShaikh
Exh.47
PhirojIsmailManiyar
Exh.48
PankajVajubhaiMalavdiya
Exh.49
RavikumarMansing/TansingBadshah
Exh.62
VinodkumarDharampalsingDahiya
Exh.69
AnilShankarraoDeshmukh
Exh.73
NituLalitSolanki
Exh.75
AmarsinghSedharamRathi
Exh.76
RamkumarShamlalBhargav
Exh.78
MukeshRamkumarBhargav
Exh.83
SubhashPandharinathBhamre
Exh.87
SitaramChandrakantGaikwad
Exh.90
N.K.Thakur(Tahasildar)
Exh.94
Dr.AmitaShivyogiHiremath
Exh.98
GajananShesraoChavan
Exh.100
Dr.AniketPrakashPote
Exh.106
Dr.ShrikantSrikumarPai
Exh.109
NivruttiKrishnaKatkar
Exh.111
Dr.BhalchandraGopinathChikhalkar
Exh.123
Dr.ManishaShamBharti
Exh.133
Dr.DhavalMujibhaiGandhi
Exh.137
Dr.AshokkumarS.Gupta
Exh.153
VirendraVishnuChavan
Exh.155
NavnathArjunGhuge
Exh.159
11
(31)
(32)
(33)
(34)
(35)
(36)
(37)
16.
PW31
PW32
PW33
PW34
PW35
PW36
PW37
VijayRaghunathDhopavkar
NasirAhmedAbdulHamidShaikh
DeoramDagduWadmare
AshokSurgondaKhot
VijayShamraoDhamal
PrafullaChandrakantBhosale
RehmanEhnullaShaikh
Exh.162
Exh.164
Exh.170
Exh.173
Exh.180
Exh.183
Exh.197
Importantdocumentsrelieduponbytheprosecutionarelistedas:
(1)
Exh.28
(2)
Exh.34
(3)
Exh.41
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Exh.42
Exh.45
Exh.45A
Exh.49
(8)
(9)
Exh.57
Exh.61
(10) Exh.63
(11) Exh.65
(12) Exh.68
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
Exh.74
Exh.77
Exh.77A
Exh.80to82
Exh.88
Exh.91
Exh.96(colly.)
(20) Exh.99
(21) Exh.103
(22) Exh.107
(23) Exh.110
Panchanamaregardingseizureof
clothesofPreeti.
Panchanamaofresealinganddesealing
ofArt.C
Memorandumofconfessionalstatement
ofaccuseddated19.01.2014
Panchanamadated21.01.2014
SpotPanchanama
Map
Arrestoftheaccusedandseizure
Panchanamaofmobilephoneofthe
accused.
Arrestform
Inquestpanchanama(admittedby
defence)
Letterdated24/02/2014
Certificate
Chartofstationwisedetentionoftrain
no.12910.
MemogivenforBhabaHospital
Report/FIR
PrintedFIRformat
LicenseofBhargavChemicals
TheExtract
Memotocarryinjuredtohospital
Panchanamaandthechartof
identification.
MedicalcertificateissuedbyPW20
Letterdated14/02/2014withthe
endorsementofreceipt byDepartment
clerkMr.Kendre.
Masinahospital'sadmissionpaper
OriginalMedicalpaperofpatient(4
pages)
12
(24) Exh.112
(25)
(26)
(27)
(28)
(29)
(30)
(31)
Exh.116
Exh.117
Exh.118
Exh.119
Exh.120
Exh.121
Exh.124
(32) Exh.125to129
(33) Exh.130
(34) Exh.134
(35) Exh.135
(36) Exh.136
(37) Exh.138
(38) Exh.139
(39) Exh.140
(40) Exh.141
(41) Exh.142
(42) Exh.143
(43) Exh.144
(44) Exh.145
(45) Exh.146
(46) Exh.147
(47) Exh.148
(48) Exh.149
(49) Exh.150
(50) Exh.151
(51) Exh.152(colly.)
(52) Exh.154
LettertodelieverthearticlesatFSL,
Kalina,Santacruz,withreceiptof
endorsementfromFSL.
CAreportdated26.07.2013
CAreportdated30.07.2013
CAreportdated30.07.2013
CAreportdated30.07.2013
CAreportdated01.08.2013
CAreportdated03.06.2013
Memorandumofpostmortem
examination.
TheofficecopiesofletterstoCA
Thefinalcauseofdeathcertificate
InjuryCertificateofAmarsingh
Chhedaram Rathi.
Injury Certificate of Sudesh Dipendra
Singh
InjuryCertificateofShamsuddinSameer
Shaikh
MedicalcasepapersofPreetiinMasina
Hospital.
Medicalcasepaperdated04.05.2013of
7.00p.m.to11.00p.m.
Medicalcasepaperdated06.05.2013
Medicalcasepaperdated06.05.2013
Medical case paper dated 07.05.13 &
08.05.13
Medical case paper dated 08.05.13 &
09.05.13
Medicalcasepaperdated09.05.2013
Medicalcasepaperdated10.05.2013&
11.05.2013
Medicalcasepaperdated11.05.2013&
12.05.2013.
Medicalcasepaperdated12.05.2013&
13.05.2013.
Medicalcasepaperdated12.05.2013
Medicalcasepaperdated13.05.2013&
14.05.2013
Medicalcasepaperdated14.05.2013
Medicalcasepaperdated14.05.2013
Medicalcasepapers(paperalreadyexh.
138to150)
MedicalreportfromBombayHospital
13
(53) Exh.163
(54) Exh.165
(55) Exh.167
(56)
(57)
(58)
(59)
Exh.168
Exh.178
Exh.179
Exh.185
(60) Exh.186
(61) Exh.187
(62) Exh.192
(63) Exh.194
(64) Exh.203(coll)
(65) Exh.204
(66) Exh.205
(67) Exh.210
(68) Exh.213A
(69) Exh.213B
17.
Entryinregisterforacidsamples
Letterinrespectofforwardingthe
samplesofstomachcontents,liver,
spleen,bloodandscalphair.
Forwardingletterofforwardingsamples
forhistopathology.
TheRailwayreservationchart.
Frontpageoflockupregister.
entryinlockupregister.
RequisitiontoTahasildarregardingT.I.
parade
LettertoJailSuperintendentregarding
T.I.Parde
Letter received from Tahasildar dated
06.02.2014.
Office order regarding constitution of
investigationteam.
Casediarydated09.05.2013
Medicalcasepapersoftreatmentof
PreetiRathiinBombayHospital.
Form.Simcardapplicationformof
accused.
DocumentwithExh.204.
CertifiedcopyofFIRno.36/2013dated
02.05.2013.
Certifiedcopyofreplytobail
applicationofPwankumar.
Certifiedcopyofbailapplicationof
Pawankumar.
Listofarticles:
(1)Art.A(colly.)
(2)Art.B(colly.)
(3)Art.C
(4)Art.D
(5)Art.E
(6)Art.F
(7)Art.G
(8)Art.H
(9)Art.I(colly.)
(10)Art.J
Clothesofvictim(Art.5)
Clothesofmaternalauntofvictim(Art.6)
Whiteplasticcontainer/'dabba'
OneIDEAsimcard
OneblackcolouredNokiamobilehandset.
OneDocomosimcard
OneNokiacompanybatteryofmobilephone.
Airtelsimcard
FourcurrencynotesofRs.10/fivecoinsofRs.
10/insideonecurrencynoteofRs.5andone
coinofRs.5/andonecoinofRs.1/
Moneypurse
14
(11)Art.K(colly.)
(12)Art.L
(13)Art.M
(14)Art.N
18.
TheHDFCvisacard,IdentitycardofPark
HyattGoaResortandSpa,inthenameof
AnkurPanwar,onepassportsizephoto,10
visitingcards,onepocketcalenderfortheyear
2010,onepocketcalenderfortheyear2011,
oneleafletofHotelHyatt,onecardwith
Laxmiphoto,fourbusticketseachRs.15/,
OneconfidentialinformationfromAxisBank
withpersonalidentificationnumber,One
laundrybillofParkHyattGoawithsome
phonenumberonthebackside,onepaper
withprintednameAnkurPanwaratpark
Hyatt,GoaResortandSpa,onepieceofpaper
fromNotebookwithcontents,''Iqbal
Singh.dhanuk@yahoo.com.''
Thecottonswabs(offluidfromspot)
Cottonswabs,(soilcollectedfromspot)in
plasticcover.
Burntpiecesofclothesseizedfromspot.
forensicevidence.Theevidenceleadbytheprosecutioncanbecategorizedin
followingmanner.
1.Eyewitnesses
2.CircumstantialEvidence
3.MedicalEvidence
4.ForensicEvidenceand
5.Otherevidence
1.
EYEWITNESSESOFTHEACTUALINCIDENT:
19.
Beforebeginningwiththediscussionitisimportanttomention
herethatthedefencecounselsubmittedthatdefencehasnoobjectiontoread
theboggieasJ1whichiswronglyrecordedasG1atsomeplacesinthe
depositionofsomeofthewitnesses.
15
20.
BottlepickersPW6SameerShaikhandPW7Salimworkingfor
21.
StatementofPW6wasrecordedonthesamedayoftheincident
i.e.,on02/05/2013.Inthecrossexaminationheexplainedthatfirstlyhewas
takentothespotandthereafterhisstatementwasrecorded.Hisshirtwasnot
seized.Policedidnotaskforhisshirtwhichhewaswearingatthetimeof
16
incidentandwasburntduetotheliquid.
22.
PW7Salim@SalmanKhanwasonBandraterminusalongwith
PW6.HeheardthescreamsofthegirlfromtheplatforminfrontofBoggie
no.J2.ImmediatelyheheardshoutofPW6whosaid''SalimpakadSaleko''.
Hesawoneboyrunningfromhissideandwentahead.Hefollowedhim.The
boysawbehindbyturningbackhishead.PW7couldseethefaceashisscarf
hadcomedown.PW7chasedhimbuthefelldownandtheboydisappeared.
Therefore,hecamebacktoSameer.HesawthegirlandSameer.Hecould
smellthefluidasacid.Thegirlsfacewasinjuredduetotheacidflung.Italso
spattered on the hands of Sameer. He described the boy as like with fair
complexion,slimbuiltandofhisheighti.e.,about5.5inches.
23.
ItisadmittedinthecrossexaminationthatPW7wasstanding
nearJ1boggieandSameerwasnearJ2aheadhim.Heranforabout1520
feetdistance.Otherpassengersalsotriedtocatchtheperpetrator.
24.
ClearingforwardingagentoftheparcelsPW9,PankajMalviya,
usedtobepresentatBandraTerminus.HewasacquaintedwithPW6and
PW7.On02.05.2013at8.00a.m.hewasstandingnearplatformno.3with
hisparcelswhenGaribrathExpressarrivedfromDelhi.J2boggiwasinfront
ofhim.Passengerswerealightingfromthetrain.Hesawoneboytyingscarf
onhisface,wearingcapandholdingonewhitecolouredplasticdabbalike
17
chyavanprashcontainerwasgoingtowardsengine.Heprominentlynoticed
himashewaswearingcapandtyingscarf.Theboywentandtappedonegirl
fromherbackside.Thegirlturnedback.Suddenlytheboyhurledliquidfrom
that'dabba'onthefaceofthatgirl.Hethrewdabbaandranawaytowards
engine.Thegirlscreamed.Sameershoutedandsaid'pakdopakdo'.PW9too
ranafterthatboy.Theboyturnedbacktwice.PW9couldseehisfaceasthe
caphadfallenandthescarfhadslithereddown.Buttheboyranaway.PW9
camebacktothegirlandsawburnsonherfaceandbody.Threetofour
personsreceivedburninjuriesintheincident.Sameeralsoreceivedburns.
PW9 had identified the same assailant in Arthur Road Jail in test
identificationparadeheldon12/02/2014.Healsoidentifiedhiminthecourt
room.HeidentifiedArt.Casthesame'dabba'theaccusedwasholdingatthe
timeoftheincident.
25.
station.Hehadcollectedparcelsonthatday.After5to6peoplealightedthe
accused alighted from the boggie. Sameer was walking when the incident
took place. The girl was with 5 to 6 persons on the platform. She was
standingwhentheaccusedtappedher.Heheardtheshouts'pakdo,pakdo'
fromSameer.Hedidnottellanythingtothepoliceimmediately.Ashesaw
theincidenthewasfeelinggiddyandtherefore,hewentbacktohome.He
gotscaredofthesuddenincident.
18
26.
27.
Inthetrainat4.00p.m.on02/05/2013PW11wenttotoilet
towardsJ3coach.One2025yearsoldboy,withheight5feet2or3inches,
was standing near the door of toilet. He was wearing yellow Tshirt and
holdingoneredbaginhishand. PW11toldthatboytogoandsitathis
placeaskingwhyhewasstandingthere.Theboytoldhimthathegotbored
therefore,isstandingoutside.WhenPW11askedhimtillwhereheisgoing
heansweredthatuptothelastdestinationofthetrain.TheboyaskedPW11
thatwhereheisgoingandheinformedthatuptoBandraterminus.
28.
At8.00a.m.PW11alightedthetrainafterhiswifeSunita,Preeti
andherfather.Hewascarryingluggage.3to4passengerscamebetweenhim
andthem.Hewouldhavewalkedtwotothreestepswhenhesawoneboy
wearingcapandtyingscarfonfacehurledsomethingfromthebox/dabbaon
Preeti.Preetishouted.Somebodyelsealsoshoutedas'pakdopakdo'.Theboy
whothrewsomethingstartedrunningaway.Hewentbehindtheboywithhis
19
luggage.Theboylookedbehind.Hisscarfhadslideddowntohisneck.The
capwasnotthere.Hesawhisfaceandidentifiedhimasthesameboywith
whomhetalkednearthetoiletinthetrain.PW11couldnotchasehimand
camebacktoPreeti.Preetiwaswithburninjuriesduetosomeacidlikefluid.
Amarsingh,Sunitaandsomeotherpersonsaroundhadalsoreceivedburns
duetospatteringoffluid.PW11andhiswifeferriedPreetitoGurunanak
HospitalatBandra.Henarratedtheincidenttodoctor.Preeticouldnotspeak.
ThedoctoradvisedtoshifthertoMasinaHospitalduetothelackoffacilities
inthathospital.Therefore,hetookhertoMasinaHospital.Afteramonth
Preetidiedoftheburns.
29.
12/02/2014.Healsoidentifiedhiminthecourtroom.Accusedwasunknown
to PW11. Vinod kumar had disclosed the incident to the police constable
PW12whowaswithhimwhilecarryingPreetitoGurunanakHospital.The
constablehadsuggestedtotakePreetitoGurunanakHospital.Hedeniedthat
PreetidiedduetothenegligenceofMasinaHospital.
30.
Itistheconsistentevidenceofallfourwitnessesthattheysaw
theaccusedthrowingacidonPreetiandthereafterranaway.Defencecounsel
has not been successful in anyway to discredit the testimony of these
witnesses.
20
2.
31.
CIRCUMSTANTIALEVIDENCE:
1.
FirstInformationReport:
PW14 Amarsingh Rathi, father of Preeti was with Preeti,
32.
PW14Amarsinghsawthebacksideoftheaccused.Thewitness
wascrossexaminedonthepointofPawakumarwhowasfirstlyarrestedby
thepoliceandthereafterdischarged.PW14admittedthathefiledaffidavitin
thecourtontheinformationreceivedaboutPawankumarshowingthathe
21
wasnotatthespotoftheincident.Hedisclosedthathewantedtheactual
culprittobetakenintocustody.
33.
stationon02/05/20213.Atabout9.00a.m.policeconstablePW18Sitaram
Gaikwad and Amarsingh Rathi came to him. Amarsingh Rathi lodged the
reportonwhichtheFIRwasregistered.Thestationdiaryentrywasmadeat
serialno.20at10.00a.m.Theoriginalstationdiaryentrywassenttothe
Office of ACP. Other staff was already sent to the spot. He informed the
detection unit about the crime. After registration of crime the FIR was
forwardedtotheMagistrate.ButheadmittedthatinExh.77Athedateand
timeofdispatchtothecourtofMagistrateisnotmentioned.However,he
maintained that it was sent to the Magistrate. The FIR was against the
unknownperson.
34.
Therefore,thefactsarethataftertheincidentFIRwasregistered
reflectingthecompleteincidentanditwasforwardedtoMagistrate.Itisan
unblemishedpieceofevidence.
2.
CarriersofPreetiandotherpersonsinjuredinthe
incident.:
35.
PW12AnilShankarraoDeshmukh,Buckleno.3506wasonduty
till9.00a.m.on02/05/2013atBandraRailwaypolicestation.At8.00a.m.
22
hewasonthebacksideofplatformno.2.Hereportedstationmaster'soffice
aftertheannouncementwasmade.Hesawoneladyintaxiinfrontofstation
master'soffice,wasgroaninginpainduetoacidburns.Stationmastergave
himamemoExh.74tocarryhertoBhabaHospital.VinodkuamrDahiyaand
Sunita Dahiya were with her. They asked him to take Preeti to nearest
hospitaltherefore,theywenttoGurunanakHospital. PW11narratedthe
incidentanddescribedtheboy,theperpetrator,tohim.Firstaidwasgivento
PreetiinGurunanakHospital.FromthereshewasshiftedtoMasinaHospital.
HeinformedBandrapolicestationthatPreetiisadmittedinMasinaHospital.
36.
ItcanbegatheredthatPreetiwascarriedtoGurunanakHospital
though the memo was in the name of Bhaba Hospital. It was so because
PW11wantedtotakePreetitohospitalattheearliest.Theinjuredpersons
werecarriedtoBhabaHospital.
37.
PreetiwasserioushetookPreetitothenearesthospitalattherequestofher
relatives.Itwouldhavebeentaken40minutestoreachBhabaHospitalwhile
theyreachedGurunanakHospitalin10to12minutes.
38.
AfterPW12alongwithPreetireachedMasinaHospital,firstlythe
patient was examined and, thereafter, the form of the hospital was filled.
23
VinodDahiyatalkedtothedoctor.Preeticouldnotspeaktothedoctor.
39.
PW18wasatplatformwhowenttothestationmaster'soffice
aftertheannouncementwasmadeon02/05/2013at8.10a.m.Hesawone
lady, one boy and one man injured out of acid attack. Station master
instructedhimtotakethemtothenearesthospitalbyandhandingovera
memotohim.HetookthemtoBhabaHospital,gaveoriginalmemotodoctor
andobtainedendorsementofreceiptonthecopywhichisatExh.91.Oneof
theinjuredwasAmarsinghRathi,whowantedtolodgepolicereport.Other
twowereSudeshaKumariandSameerShaikh.Doctortreatedthem.Atthe
sametimepoliceofficercametothehospital.PW18broughtallthethree
injured person to the Bandra police station and produced before ASI
Bhambre(PW17).
40.
written.OnthewaytohospitalPW18madeinquiryandlearnedtheirnames.
AfterhetookthembacktopolicestationAmarsinghRathilodgedthereport.
41.
Originalmemoisnorproducedonrecord.Itisarguedthatthe
SeizureofclothesofPreetiandheraunt:
24
42.
InMasinaHospitalPW3ShreeyaSawant,anurse,wasonduty
on02/05/2013at9.30a.m.whenPreetiwasbroughttothehospital.She
saw Preeti had burns over her face, chest and upperarms. Preeti was
consciousbutwasnotinapositiontospeak.SunitaDahiyaandVinodkumar
Dahiya PW11, were with her. Sunita was also having burns on her body.
Preeti was admitted in hospital. Both were given medical treatment. The
clothesofPreetiwereremovedbyher.ShehandedovertheclothesofPreeti
and Sunita respectively at Art.A(colly) and Art.B(colly.) to reception in
separatebagswhichwereseizedandsealedbythepolice.
43.
theywerewearing.HeaskedPW3nurseShreeyaSawantforthesame.He
seizedthemvidepanchanamaatExh.28aftertheywereproducedbyPW3.
HeidentifiedtheclothesatArt.AandArt.B.Atthesametimeherecordedthe
statementofShreeyaSawant.
44.
02/05/2013at10.30a.m.whenwascalledinthehospitalbypoliceofficer
Dhopawkar(PW31).HewastoldabouttheincidentofacidflungonPreeti
RathiatBandrarailwaystation.AnotherpanchBahuddinShaikhwasalso
present.NurseShreeyaSawant(PW3)camewiththeclothesofvictimPreeti
RathiandherauntSunitaDahiya.Thosewerelookingburntandtorn.Those
25
wereseparatelywrapped,sealedandseized.Hesignedthelableswhichwere
affixed on the wrappers of the clothes. He identified the clothes at Art.
A(colly.)astheclothesofPreetiRathiandArt.B(colly)astheclothesofaunt
ofPreeti.
45.
Thus,theclothesofPreetiandheraunttheywerewearingatthe
timeoftheincidentwereseizedandsealed.
4.
Carryingtheseizedarticlesfromspotandclothesfrom
hospitaltoCA:
46.
PW24HeadconstableNivruttiKatkarreceivedthearticlesgiven
5.
47.
Spotpanchanama:
26
48.
PW6wascalledatpolicestationtoshowthespotoftheincident.
49.
PW29VirendraChauhanwasinformedon02/05/2013at10.30
a.m.bypoliceofficerDhopavkarPW31abouttheacidattackonPreeti.As
27
instructedhewenttothespot,onplatformno.3,anddrewspotpanchanama
ofthespotshownbyPW6Sameer,inthepresenceofpanchwitnessPW5
MahadeoSapkal.ThespotwasinfrontofJitendraJainStallnearsubway
wall.Hesawthefluid/acid,spreadovertheplatformandsomeotherarticles
around.Therewereburntpiecesofclothesandone'dabba'withoutlid.He
seized'dabba',piecesofclothes,simplesoilandcollectedthefluidfromthe
floor.Heobtainedalidfromtheshopinfrontofthespottoclosethemouth
of'dabba'havingrestoffluid.Bysealingallthearticlesinthepresenceof
panchas PW5, Mahadeo Sapkal and Haribhau Kadam he prepared
panchanama. He also prepared rough map 'Exh.45A' of the spot of the
incident.HeidentifiedArt.Cthe'dabba'seizedfromthespot.
50.
WhenthearticlesseizedwereshowntothewitnessPW29the
brown paper wrapper was already turned into pieces and powder due to
corrosivefumes.ThecottonswabcollectedwasidentifiedatArt.L.Thelabel
of the soil collected and sealed when seized was also found turned into
pieces.TheburntpiecesofclothesArt.Mwerewrappedandsealedinpaper
whichwasturnedintopieces.ThelabelisidentifiedasExh.158,however,the
signaturepartwasvanished.
51.
fixedondabba.PW29learntabouttheincidentabout9.30a.m.Whenhe
28
went to police station PW14 was present at police station. The entry of
articles was made by him in the police station. Non reference of lid is
challengedbythedefencetoinferthatExh.45isafabricateddocument.
52.
Thespotpanchanamadepictsthesceneofoccurrenceandalso
thearticleslyingonspot.SameerwaseyewitnesswhoshowedittoI.O.The
document was prepared on the spot in the presence of panchas. There is
nothing in the crossexamination to doubt the preparation of spot
panchanama.
6)
53.
Disclosureofroleofaccusedinthecrime:
PW13NeetuLalitSolankiwasinfriendlyrelationswithPreeti,
beingofherage.Preetiwasherhusband'saunt's(Bua)daughter.Preetiwas
visitingherhousewhenshewasstudyingnursingcourseintheyear2007to
2011.Sheusedtostayovernightatherhouse.InMarch,2013Preetitoldher
thatoneboynamelyAnkurresidinginB.B.M.B.Colony,wherePreetiwas
residingwithherpatents,wasbehavingdifferently.Preetihadconfidedinher
thatoncehehadstoppedheronthewayandtoldherthathelikedherand
proposedherformarriage.Preetihadspurnedtheproposalandaskedhim
firsttomakehiscareerandthentothinkaboutthemarriage.PW13teased
herthatasshelookedbeautifulhemighthavegonecrazy(diwana).ButPreeti
toldherthatshewasnotamadtomarryhim.
29
54.
Before15to20daysoftheincidentPreetihadmetNitu(PW13).
AtthattimebymakingfunPW13hadaskedherastohowherdiwanawas.
Preetitoldherthatshewasnotmadtolookathim.PreeticonfidedinNitu
thatAnkurhadaskedherastowhyshewasgoingtoMumbaiandhergoing
toMumbaiwasnotgood.AtthattimealsoPreetidefiedhim,toldhimnotto
teachherandaskedhimtomindhisownbusiness.
55.
PW13didnotdisclosethe talkbetweenherandPreetiabout
AnkurtopoliceorrelativesofPreetiasshehadtakenitlightly.Shedisclosed
ittoherfamilymembersbeforeherstatementwasrecorded.Shewasnot
personally knowing as who was Ankur. She did not make inquiry about
AnkurwhenshewenttoPreeti'shouseafterherdeath.
56.
investigationwasinitiatedinwhichallremotechancesofgettingsomeclues
were explored. Neetu Solanki had taken the talk of accused with Preeti
lightly. This is the point were the suspicion against the accused became
strong.
7.
Arrestofaccused:
57.
PW8FirozIsmailManiyarandRashidwerepresentaspanchat
Kurlapolicestation.PW34,PIKhot,PW35policeofficerDhamalandPW36
30
police officer Bhosale were also present. During his deposition PW8
identifiedtheaccusedpresentinthecourtasthepersonwhowasatpolice
station atthattime.Police had told PW8thataccused was brought from
Delhi in the night. Physical search of the accused was conducted. Black
colouredNokiamobilephone,Art.E,someotherarticles,Art.I(colly.)andK
(colly.)were also found with him. Those were sealed and seized and
thereaftertheaccusedwasarrestedvidepanchanamaatExh.57.
58.
PW34PIAshokKhot,fromAntiRobbery,DacoityCell,arrested
59.
suspicion he wasbroughttoMumbaiandwasarrestedinthepresenceof
panchas.Theoldhealedinjuriesscarsonrightforearmandleftforearmwere
noticedandmentionedinarrestpanchanama.
8)
EvidenceAct.:
60.
31
Kurla Crime Branch Office. PW35 Vijay Dhamal, police officer, one more
panchIrfanandonepersoninveilwerethere.Hisveilwasremoved.Hetold
hisnameasAnkurNarayanlalPanwaranddisclosedhisreadinesstoshowthe
placefromwhereandfromwhomhehadpurchasedacidatNarela,Delhi.
ThememorandumofthestatementofaccusedwasrecordedvideExh.41.On
20/01/2014accused,PW4,withoneotherpanch,andPW35wenttoDelhi
byAugustKrantiTrain.TheyreachedDelhion21/01/2014.AccusedAnkur
tookthemtoonegodownwhichwasclosed.Oninquiryitwasfoundclosed
since 15 to 20 days. Neighbouring person from 'Yash Chemicals' made a
phonecalltotheownerofthegodown,PW15RamKumarBhargav,who
camethere.Theaccusedwasinveil.Accusedstatedthathedidnotpurchase
acid from PW15 but it was from a young man. Accused told that he
purchased acid from the same godown owned by PW15. Son of PW15,
Mukesh,wouldalsositinthegodown/shop.AtthattimeMukeshwasoutof
Delhi.PW15informedthattheyhaveshiftedtheshoptootherplace.The
panchanamaExh.42wasdrawn.InthecrossexaminationofdefencePW4
deniedthathesignedthealreadypreparedpanchanmaatpolicestation,in
Mumbai.
61.
PW15RajkumarBhargavistheowneroftheBhargavChemical
TradingCompanyatPannaPaposhiya,Narela,Delhi.InDecember,2013the
businesswasshiftedtotheindustrialareaatNarela.Heandhissonrunthe
32
62.
ThelicenseofthebusinesswasinthenameofwifeofthePW15.
SaiddocumentsareatExh.80,81and82.Theymaintaintheregisteratwork
place.MukeshcamefromGoaandthenwenttoMumbaiafterPW15gave
information. Previously they were not mentioning the ID proof of the
customerinrecordbutnowtheyaredoingsoandkeepingphotocopy.Inthe
year2013theywereaskingonlytoshowtheIDproof.Hehadnotseenthe
accusedbroughtbythepolice.
63.
PW16isasonofPW15.Theyprovidesamplesofacidsfreeof
costforthebusinesspurposestothepartysoastoverifythequalityandplace
theorder.WhenhewasinGoahereceivedaphonecallfromhisfatherwho
informedaboutthevisitofpolice.
33
64.
respectofsulphuricacid.Therewastheentrydated14/04/2013inthename
of Ankur batterywhohadtaken 2kg.sampleofsulphuric acidfor newly
startedbusinessofthatman.Hemadetheentryinkaccharegisterandalso
saw his ID proof. PW16 had asked the boy for a container to give acid.
Therefore,theboywentbyhisScootyvehicleandbroughtonechyawanprash
'dabba',Art.C,inwhichhegave2kg.Sulphuricacid.Theentryofsample
giventoAnkurisenteredinregisteratExh.163.PW16describedtheboyas
20to25yearsold,wheatishcomplexionandthinbuilt.
65.
ItispointedoutinthecrossexaminationofPW16thathedid
notstatethewords'sale'topolice.Thewitnesswasattackedbythedefencein
thecrossexaminationonthepointthattheentrywaspreparedsubsequently
attheinstanceofpoliceandthatthenameAnkurwasenteredatthesayof
police.TheyhavestoppedgivingsamplessinceJuly2013.
66.
memorandumofstatementatExh.41wasrecorded.Accusedleadpoliceand
panchas to Delhi to Panna Paposhiya from where he obtained acid. The
investigationprogressedthroughPW15,PW16.Exh.163,theregisterwith
the entry of acid sample obtained by the accused from PW16, came in
picture.
34
67.
Muchhueandcrywasmadeinrespectofacidpurchasedandthe
acidsampleobtainedbytheaccused.However,PW16wasfirmonthepoint
thatsampleofsulphuricacidwasgiventotheaccusedanditwasnotsoldto
him.
68.
Thus,theprosecutionsucceededtobringthefactsthatonthe
informationoftheaccused thepoliceteamwenttoDelhitothegodown
shownbytheaccused.Theinvestigationcouldreachtounfoldthefactthat
accusedprocuredacidinArt.Cwhichwasfoundonthespotoftheincident.
9)
69.
Testidentificationparade:
PW6describedtheboyaswiththinbuilt,22to24yearsoldwith
approximateheightof5.4inches.Hewascalledforidentificationparadein
Arthur Road Jail on 12/02/2014 where he identified the accused. He
identifiedtheaccusedAnkurinthecourtasthesameboy.
70.
monthsoftheincident,aswellasinthecourtroomduringhisdeposition.
71.
WhenPW9identifiedtheaccusedinArthurRoadJailSameer
andSalimalsohadbeentojailforidentificationparade.
35
72.
AtthetimeoftestidentificationparadePW11wasaskedbythe
Magistratetoidentifythepersonhehadseeninthetrainandflingingacidon
Preeti.Heidentifiedtheaccused.
73.
12/02/2014atArthurRoadJail.
74.
conductedtestidentificationparadeon12/02/2014atArthurRoadJail.On
06/02/2014 Tahasildar, Andheri gave him a letter to conduct test
identificationparade.Accordinglyheinformedthesametothecrimebranch
videExh.95andfixedthedateon12/02/2014.
75.
On12/02/2014PW35,PoliceOfficerDhamal,waspresentwith
thewitnessesforidentificationparadeoftheaccused.AsPW19askedPW35
hadarrangedfor4to5persons.PW19selectedtwoofthemaspanchas.He
enteredthejailwiththewitnessesandthepanchasandinspectedtheroomof
identificationparade.Thewitnessesweremadetositintheroomfromwhere
theidentificationparadewasnotvisiblenoranysoundwasaudiable.Hesaw
the accused and asked jail officer to bring some persons with the similar
physiqueandappearances.Heselecteddummies.Accusedwasaskedtostand
anywhereamongstthedummiesinarow.Hewasalsogivenopportunityto
36
changeclothesand,ifdesires,tochangehispositioninarowofdummies.
Onebyone,bytakingalltheprecautions,witnessesNaseemKhan,Salim@
Salman Shaikh, Sameer Shaikh, Vinodkumar Dahiya, Rohit Singh, Mukesh
BhargavandPankajMalviyawerecalledinparaderoom.Theyallidentified
theaccusedwhowasstandingamongstthedummies.Hepreparedseparate
identification chart for each witness who identified the accused. After
completingtheidentificationparadethepanchanamaExh.96wasprepared.
76.
Allthewitnessesidentifiedtheaccused.Inthecrossexamination
nothingisseentodoubttheidentificationbythesewitnesses.Therewasno
opportunityforthesewitnessestoseetheaccusedbeforetestidentification
paradewasheld.
10)
77.
InvestigatingOfficers:
PW30NavnathGhugewasdirectedbyPW36,ACPBhosale,the
maininvestigatingofficerofthecrimeno.120/2013,whichwastransferred
aspertheordersofHighCourttoDCB,CID,togotoDelhiwithPW35to
recordthestatementofrelativesofPreeti.HealsohadgonetoVTStation
office on 24/02/2014 to make the inquiry of three PNR numbers and
collectedthesamevideExh.66.Itwaswithoutcertificateundersection65B
oftheIndianEvidenceAct.On03/03/2014hecollectedthestatusofGarib
rathExpressranon01/05/2013regardingitsarrivaltime.
37
78.
Bhambreat8.30a.m.informingthatoneboyflungacidononegirlandthe
girlwastakentoMasinaHospital.Helearntthatotherinjuredpersonswere
takentoBhabaHospital.Afterreceivingtheinformationheinformedtoguard
and to secure the spot and deputed the staff at 8.30 a.m. itself. After he
reachedpolicestationat9.00a.m.hewenttotheMasinaHospitalwithstaff
carryingthearticlesrequired.Preetiwasadmitted inICU.PW31mether
andtriedtomakeinquirybutshewasunabletospeak.Doctorinformedthat
duetoingestionofacidshewasunabletospeak.PW17informedhimthat
herecordedthestatementofAmarsinghRathiandregisteredFIRno.36/13
undersection307,326Aand326BofI.P.C.ImmediatelyheaskedPW29
Virendra Chauhan to go to the spot for spot panchanama. In the hospital
PW11 Vinodkumar and his wife Sunita were present. He recorded their
statements.
79.
PW31wasvisitingMasinaHospitaldailybutcouldnotrecord
38
80.
C.C.T.V.Cameraswereinstalledontheplatform.C.C.T.V.Footage
wascollectedandshowedtoPW11Vinod.HeclarifiedthatastheC.C.T.V.
imageswerenotclearhedidnotshowittoanybodyelse.Defencetriedto
bringthattheC.C.T.V.footagearedeliberatelynotbroughtintheevidence.
81.
entriesarenotmaintainedtocorroboratetheinvestigation.
82.
83.
39
84.
Pawankumarwasnotfoundconnectedtothecrimeashewasat
85.
playeditsroleforthatpartoftheinvestigation.Thepreviousinvestigation
wascarriedoutbyBandraRailwayPoliceStation.Furtherinvestigationwas
carried out by DCB, CID. All the documents prepared by Bandra Railway
PoliceofficersinvestigationareusedbyDCB,CIDastheywere.Thefurther
investigationhasgotconnectedtoitafterthearrestoftheaccused.Thoughit
ischallengedbythedefencecounselthatallthedocumentsarefabricatedno
suchpossibilityisshowneventodoubtthedocumentsandtheinvestigation.
3.
86.
MEDICALEVIDENCE:
It is material piece of corroborative evidence regarding the
injuriescausedtotheinjuredwitnessesandPreetiaswellascauseofdeathof
Preeti.As wellitis equallyclinching pieceofevidence as regards the old
healedinjuriesscarsonthehandsandchestoftheaccused.
40
1.Medicalexaminationofinjuredwitnesses:
87.
02/05/2013whenAmarsinghRathi,SudeshaSinghandSameerShamsuddin
Shaikhwerebroughttothehospital.SheexaminedAmarsinghRathifirstlyat
8.50a.m.andnoticedsuperficialtodeepburnsoverupperback,right and
lefthandandleftthigh.SudeshaSinghwaswithdeepburnsoverleftarm
and forearm and left thigh calculating it 8 to 10 % burns. Sameer
ShamsuddinShaikhexaminedat9.06a.m.waswiththeburninjuriesover
boththeforearmsandleftshoulder. Itwas 4to5%burninjuries.The
certificateatExh.134,135and136wereissuedbyherforAmarsinghRathi,
SudeshSinghandSameerShaikhrespectively.Sheopinedthattheinjuries
canbecausedbythrowingacid.
88.
ItisbroughtinthecrossexaminationthatinMLCregisterthe
entryofpatientsaremadeatnumber6256,6257and6258andaccordingly
Exh.134,135 and136were prepared. The patients were alsoseen by Dr.
SandeepKale.Thediscrepanciesinthesequenceofexaminationofpatientsis
explained by PW25 that when the patient is brought the person
accompanyinggoestoOPDtogetthenumberandtheyexaminethepatient
meanwhile.Shedeniedthatshehadnotexaminedthepatients.
89.
respectiveMLCnumbercannotfalsifytheexaminationdoneandtheinjuries
41
noticed.
90.
AmarsinghRathiwereinjuredoutofacidburns.
2.MedicaltreatmentofPreeti:
i.GurunanakHospital
91.
PW23wasacasualtymedicalofficerinGurunanakHospitalon
02/05/2013.at8.30a.m.whenPreetiwasbroughtbypoliceandrelatives
i.e.,auntanduncle.Itwasinformedthatataround8.15a.m.therewasan
acidattack.HenoticedburnsoverthefaceofPreetialongwiththroat,trunk
andrightupperlimb.Hemonitoredhervitals,startedRingerslactatefluid
and informed the relatives about the lack of facilities in the hospital for
proper management. He asked them to shift her to other hospital. Her
relativestook hertootherhospital.ThepapersatExh.110arethepapers
preparedatGurunanakHospital.Theoriginalpaperswerehandedovertothe
relativesofthepatientandthecarboncopieswerekeptinthehospital.He
explainedthatasthecarbonwasnotproperlyplacedbelowtheoriginalpaper
thecontentswerenotproperlycopiedtherefore,hewrotethemissingportion
bypeninhishandwritingoncarboncopyatExh,.110onreverseside.
92.
importantthantoseewhetherwrittenincarbonorbypen.Doctorsdonot
42
waitforthedetailsfromtherelativesbutstartexaminingthepatient.Hence,
mentionedthatitwastheattackbytheunknownassailants.Hedidnotfindit
necessarytofillallthecolumnsintheform.Hehadexaminedthepatient
completely.Itisemergedthathegaveprioritytothemedicaltreatmentofthe
patientandnottothepaperformalities.
ii.MasinaHospital:
93.
PW22Dr.AniketPotewasinMasinaHospitalwherePreetiwas
broughttothehospitalbyherunclePW11andpoliceconstableat9.30to
10.00 a.m. Preeti had chemical facial burn injuries with injuries on neck,
shoulder, chest and back. The history recorded in Exh.107 was given by
VinodkumarDahiya.Preetiwasgivingheadnods.Therefore,consideringthe
statementofVinodDahiyacorrecthewrotehernameinthecolumnofname
of informant. Preeti was not stable, unable to speak and had difficulty in
breathing. Her tracheostomy was done. She had internal injuries and was
unable to speak as mucosa was edematous. The endoscopy was done on
18/05/2013asshehadtroubledbreathing.Tracheooesophagealfistulawas
noticedonendoscopytherefore,shewasreferredtoBombayhospital.
94.
ItisaffirmedincrossexaminationthatasPreetiwasfoundwith
43
95.
WhenPreetiwasbroughttotheMasinaHospitalshewasfirstly
96.
MasinaHospital,treatedPreetifrom02.05.2013to18.05.2013.Shewason
ventilator support. On 18/05/2013, her general condition was poor. Dr.
KapadiyaadvisedendoscopytoruleoutthepossibilityofTracheoesophageal
fistula.InendoscopyTracheoesophagealfistulawasfoundandDr.Kapadiya
advisedtoconsidershiftinghertothespecializedcentertodealwithTracheo
esophagealfistula.Becauseofacidtheliningofthetracheaandesophagus
weredamageddevelopingcommunicationbetweenthemduetowhichshe
wasnotabletobreathandwaskeptonventilator.
97.
From02/05/2013Dr.Gandhiwasintheteamofdoctorstreating
Preeti.PlasticSurgeonDr.SuhasAbhyankar,ENTSurgeonDr.NitinGupta,
OphthalmologistDr. Yasmin Bhagat, Surgeon and Endoscopy SurgeonDr.
Kapadiya,IntensivistDr.AzizUllaandDr.Ansariwerewithhimintheteam.
Dr. Gandhi examined Preeti first in the point of time in hospital on
02/05/2013.HecalledDr.NitinGupta.Preetiwasconscious,respondingto
verbal commands butunable tospeak.There was bleeding throughryles
44
98.
writethetechnicalwordslikeaccidentalburnsbutthereaftertheywritedown
according to the history given. As the condition of Preeti was serious on
18.05.2013shewasreferredtoBombayHospitalforbettertreatmentunder
theguidanceofDr.AshokGuptaPW28,aseniorplasticsurgeon.
99.
InthecrossexaminationitiscroppedupthatPW27hadseen
45
100.
Thefindingsmentionedinthereportarecorelatedwithclinical
findingsandotherreports.Therewasbleedinginesophagusandtheywere
continuously removing the same. PW27 denied the medical negligence of
MasinaHospitalinthetreatmentofPreeti.
iii.BombayHospital:
101.
18/05/2013whenPreetiwasadmittedwiththehistoryofacidburnsbrought
fromMasinahospital.Herconditionwascritical.Shehadburnsovertheface,
oral cavity, chest, upper extremities, airways, lungs and upper gastro
intestinal tract and was critical. She was on ventilator, had Tracheo
oesophagealfistula,wasonInotropicsupportandhaddevelopedsepsisand
multipleorganfailure.PreetiwasunderthecareofDr.AshokGuptaPW28
sinceheradmission.PW20,Dr.AmitYadav andDr.BinitaRautwerethe
teamofdoctorstreatingPreetiandreportingDr.Gupta.Preetiwasreferredto
various specialist like chest, physician, gastroenterologist and general
surgeons.ThemedicalrecordoftreatmentisatExh.203(pages1to243)
102.
PW20issuedcertificateatExh.99inrespectofthetreatmentof
PreetiafterthedeathofPreeti.Shewascrossexaminedtoelicitoutthatthe
medicaltreatmentgiventoPreetiwasnotproper,therecordwasnoproperly
maintained in respect of her treatment and Exh.203 is a set of fabricated
documents.Butnomedicalnegligencenorimproperrecordingisbroughton
46
recordtoaffectthe evidenceordoubtthemedicaltreatmentgivenorthe
genuinenessoftherecord.
103.
PW28Dr.AshokkumarGupta,whohadhandled8,000to10,000
casesofplasticsurgery,treatedPreetiinBombayHospital.Henoticedlossof
visionofrighteyeofPreetiwithlossofupperandlowereyelids.Onlefteye
therewasperceptionoflightbutnotoftheobject.Deepburnsonherface
withthickeschar(thickeningduetoburns)onupperlip,rightsideofface
and right ear, deep burns on right hand with eschar was noticed.
Tracheostomy was already done. Chest condition was poor. On CTscan of
chest severe edema in trachea and esophagus was noticed. There was
communication between esophagus and left main bronchus. Due to acid
infusedinsidetherewasinflammationoflungscausingpneumonitisofthe
rightupperandmiddle,andleftlowerlobeoflungs..Preetiwasnotableto
speak. All the specialist and nutritionist decided firstly to maintain her
condition and general parameters. Due to inability to swallow, because of
injurytofoodpipe,aminorsurgeryofJejunoctomywasdonetoincrease
feedingandnutritionalsupport. Aspirationgastronomywasdonetodrain
outthesecretionandaircomingfromlungstostomachbecauseofthefistula.
On broncoscopy broncoesophageal fistula was found approximately 1 cm.
longat7to8O'clockpositiononposterialwallofthe leftmainbroncus.
Normallythereisnosuchcommunicationasthesetwopipesaredifferent.
47
Thefloorofthemouth,tongue,hardpalate andvocalcordwereseverely
damaged. Because of the critical condition plastic surgery could not be
performed. A report of examination and the measures taken for medical
managementandthetreatmentgiventoPreetitillherdeathon01/06/2013
Exh.154waspreparedbyDr.AshokGupta.Defencecouldnotelicitanything
inthecrossexaminationofPW28tobringaboutthenegligenceonthepart
of doctors. He is a senior and experienced surgeon who considered all
parametersofPreeti'shealth.
104.
TheprosecutionbroughtthecompletetreatmentofPreetisince
aftertheincidenttillherdeath.GurunanakHospitalhadnofacilityforthe
medicalmanagementofPreetitherefore,shewascarriedtoMasinaHospital.
Till18/05/2013theteamofdoctorstookalleffortstoimprovethecondition
of Preeti. Due to inhalation and ingestion of acid edematous mucosal
secretionwascomingoutcontinuouslythroughrylestube.Shecouldnotget
recoveredtherefore,forherbettermanagementshewasshiftedtoBombay
Hospital.TeamofdoctorsatBombayHospitalwererequiredfirstlytotake
effortstomaintainherparameters.Duetohighdoseofacidshecouldnot
reviveherhealthandsuccumbedtotheinjuries.Nonegligenceisseenonthe
partofanyofthehospitalsnorthedoctors.
3)
48
deathofPreeti:
105.
postmortemofthedeadbodyofPreetion01/06/2013.Theinjuriesnoticed
byhimonthedeadbodywereburninjuriesoverfaceandneckwhichwere
deepburnsonchestandabdomen,rightandleftupperlimb,rightandleft
lowerlimbandback.Itwaswithsuperficialtodeep26%burn,withpresence
ofzoneofinflammation.Theinjuriesonfaceandchestweresufficientto
causedeath.Heopinedprovisionalcauseofdeathasevidenceofsepticemia
with pulmonary consolidation with pulmonary hemorrhage with CPVC
(ChronicPassiveVenusCongestion)liverinahospitalizedcaseofsuperficial
todeepburns.Dr.ThubeandDr.Waghmarewerealsowithhim.Thesamples
andviscerawerepreservedforCA.Memorandumofpostmortemexamination
Exh.124waspreparedbyallthethreedoctors.
106.
condition for chemical analysis. Sample of tissue bits were sent for
histopathologicalexamination.
107.
49
Exh.130.AsperPW25astheacidhadreachedtheupperrespiratorytract
andesophagusitdevelopedsepticemiacausingcomplications.
108.
4)
Medicalexaminationofaccused:
109.
PW21 Dr. Gajanan Chauhan with Dr. Thube and Dr. Niturkar
examinedtheaccusedAnkuron20/01/2014.Theynoticedsevenoldhealed
scarsofinjuriesonrightandleftforearmonflexoraspectandoverrightside
chest.
Oldhealedinjuriesonrightforearmwere
(1)0.05cm.x.04cm.nontender,smooth,white,glisteningover
rightforearamflexoraspect.0.05cm.abovewristjoint.
(2)2.5x0.8cm.,nontender,smooth,white,glistening,
marginswithbrownpegmentationofneovascularizationwith
coalescement(merging)atplacesoverrightforaramflexor
aspect7cm.abovewristjoint.
(3)3.00cmx1.00cmnontender,smooth,glistening,white,
50
overrightforarmflexoraspect9.5cm.abovewristjoint.
(4)1.5cmx0.9cm.nontender,smooth,glistening,white,over
rightforarmflexoraspect11.00cm.abovewristjoint.
(5)1.00cm.X0.3cm.nontender,smooth,glistening,white,over
rightforarmflexoraspect9.00cm.abovewristjointand
laternaltoinjuryno.3.
(6)
2.00x0.8cm.nontender,smooth,glistening,white,over
leftforarmflexoraspect4.00cm.abovewristjointmarginsill
definedbecauseofartificialtatoomark.
(7)
1.00cm.X0.2cm.Horizontal,overrightchest8.00cm.
belowandlateraltorightnippleinintercostalspace,non
tender,smooth,glistening,white.
110.
111.
On14/02/2014asperthequeryofACPvideExh.103theteam
51
112.
accusedwasdefective anddoubtfulasthetimeoftheexaminationofthe
accusedisnotmentionedinExh.102.Thewitnessansweredthatitwouldbe
intheafternoon.Itischallengedthatthecorrosiveliquidwasnotshownto
the doctors regarding which the opinion was sought. However, PW21
maintainedthatallthreeofthemdecidedthereportaspertheirexamination.
113.
presentonthehandsandchestoftheaccusedwerecausedduetocorrosive
substancewasprobablysecondarydropsofcorrosivesubstance,liquid.
4)
FORENSICEVIDENCE
ChemicalAnalyzerreport:Exh.116.TheCAreportsofvisceradoes
notrevealanypoison.Exh.117isofthesamplessentforbloodgrouping.Exh.
118isnotrelevantbeinginrespectofsemen.Exh.119istheCAreportof
ScalphairofPreeti,whichwasreferredtogeneralanalyticalandinstrument
divisioninoriginalcondition. Exh.120isinrespectofsamehairinwhich
sulphate from sulphuric acidis detected.In Exh.121clothes of Preeti and
Sunita Dahiya seized in the hospital are detected with sulphate from
sulphuricacid.Art.Cthedabbawaswithbrownishliquidwhichisdetectedas
concentratedsulphuricacid.
Inthearticlesseizedfromthespotofcrime,clothesofPreetiand
Sunitaseizedfromhospital,scalphaircollectedafterthedeathofPreetiand
52
thecontentsofArt.Cconcentratedsulphuricacidisdetected.
5.
114.
Otherevidence:
PW10 Ravikumar Badshah, who was in railway services,
115.
PW10producedtheinformationatExh.66/1to66/3alongwith
certificateundersection65BofIndianEvidenceActatExh.65.Heretrieved
theinformationfromtheserver.Hewasauthorizedtoholdthepasswordto
retrievetheinformationfromthecomputer. Heexplainedthatthereisno
possibility of human error in the data stored in the server nor it can be
manipulated.
53
116.
117.
DefencedisputedtheconductofPW33onthegroundthathe
faceddepartmentalinquiryforillegalarrestofonepersoninNDPScase.But
itcouldnotleadtotheconclusionthatheneveractedinabonafidemanner
northathewasincapacitatedfortheinvestigation.
118.
PW2AnandAnilSandhyewasgoingbacktohishomeat11.30
54
inside.Thewords'DIVYAPHARMACY'B56025werewrittenonitsbottom.It
wasresealedandpanchanamaExh.34wasprepared.Hewasinformedthat
thesaidarticlewasreceivedfromchemicalanalyzer.HeidentifiedArt.Cin
thecourtasthesamethedabba/container.
119.
120.
Acrossexaminationwasdonechallengingtheentryinlockup
registerExh.175.Fromwhichitisapparentthataccusedwasremovedfrom
lockupon20/01/2014at10.05a.m.forhismedicalexamination.Entriesin
lockupregisterinthenameofAnkushNarayanlalPanwarisseeninExh.179.
Itisseenpurelyaclericalmistake.Nodisputedordoubtfulentryisseenin
Exh.179.
121.
PW37RehmanShaikhhadissuedasimcardtotheaccusedwith
number9717545730.Thecustomerapplicationformgotfilledbyhimwith
photocopyofelectionIDproofandthephotographofaccusedAnkurwas
55
collectedbyhimvideExh.204.
122.
Thus,itisfoundthatPreeti,AmarsinghRathi,Vinodkumar
DOCUMENTARYEVIDENCE:
123.
the significant part of the prosecution's case being prepared and obtained
duringinvestigation.Thoseareequallyimportantwhiledecidingthecharges
framedalongwiththeoraltestimonyofthewitnesses.
(1)Exh.28seizureofclothesofPreetiandSunitaDahiyaon
02/05/2013:
TheclothesofPreetiwereoneredtornsalwarwithacidburns,
onechocolatecolouredkurta,onebluecolouredknickersandawhitebrassier
atArt.A(colly.).ThoseareidentifiedbyPW1,thepanch,andPW3thenurse.
Salwarandkurtaarealmosttatteredduetotheacidfumes.Theclothesof
SunitaDahiyaArt.B(colly.)salwar,kurtaandodhaniarealsotornduetothe
56
acidburn.PW31preparedExh.28.
Inspiteofthecrossexaminationmakingtheeffortstodisprove
thecontentsitisprovedbyPW1,PW3andPW31.
(2)Exh.34PanchanamaofdesealingandresealingofArt.C
seizedon02/05/2013:
PW2wasthepanchinwhosepresenceitwaspreparedbyPW33
PIWadmareon02/07/2013.Thepurposeofdesealingandresealingisthat
asthearticlewasseizedon02/05/2013i.e.,immediatelyaftertheincident
investigator wanted to lead further investigation. He mentioned the
descriptionofthewords'DIVYAPHARMACY'andnumberB56025embossed
onit.ItwasthearticlecontainingcorrosiveliquidhurledatPreeti.Itwassent
to FSL for CA. After receipt of the same from CA this panchnama was
prepared.PW5,PW6andPW29alsoidentifieditaswasseizedunderspot
panchanama.
(3)Exh.41and42Confessionalstatementoftheaccusedand
discoveryofsourceofsulphuricacid:
On 19/01/2014 the confessional statement of accused Ankur
PanwarwasrecordedinthepresenceofPW4byPW35APIDhamal.Itwas
preparedasperthesayoftheaccusedwhowasincustody.WhenPW4went
tothepolicestationaccusedwasinveil.Accusedvoluntarilydisclosedthathe
will show the place from where and from whom he had purchased acid.
57
Exh.41bearssignatureofaccusedandpanchasincludingPW4.Itleadthe
investigationastheaccusedshowedthegodownatPannapaposhiyaatDelhi.
Panchasandpoliceofficerswenttothegodownshownbyhimownedandrun
by PW15 and PW16. At Pannapaposhiya PW16 was not present. PW15
arrivedbutaccusedinformedthatheobtainedacidfromayoungmanand
not from PW15, who was an aged person. The panchanama of the
proceedingswasdrawnatPannapaposhiya.ItisalsosignedbyPW15,who
describedthepanchanamasproceedingstookplaceinhispresence.Itisthe
importantdocumentwhichhelpedingainingmomentumintheinvestigation.
Itwasonlywhentheninformationwassuppliedbytheaccusedthefactofthe
sourceofacidcouldgetunclothed.NeitherPW15norPW16wereknownto
policenorPW14Amarsinghhadanyknowledgeofhisinvolvement.Nobody
wasacquaintedwiththefactthatPW15andPW16areacidsellers.Itisan
importantlinkinthechainofcircumstances
The witnesses have clearly proved that the memorandum of
statementofaccusedwaspreparedatthesayoftheaccused.Heleadthe
investigatingteamtothesourceofacidbroughtbyhim.
(4)Exh.45Spotpanchanama:
On 02/05/2013 PW29 PSI Chauhan went to the spot at the
instructionsofPIDhopavkarPW31.PW6Sameershowedthespot.Fromthe
spotArt.C'dabba'wasseized.Alsothefluidwascollectedfromtheground
alongwith some burnt pieces of clothes. PW5, the panch, identified the
58
articlesseizedinhispresence.Art.N,theburntpiecesofclothes,whende
sealedinthecourtwerefoundturnedintopiecesalongwiththebrownpaper
inwhichthosewerewrapped.
DescriptionoflidputonArt.CisnotthereinExh.45.ButPW5
andPW21specificallydescribedtheplasticlid.Thelidisalsomentionedin
forwarding letter Exh.112 by which the articles were sent for CA. Some
browncolouredcorrosivechemicalwasinArt.C.Therefore,fromthenearby
stallonelidwastakenandfixedonit.Itisthefirstdocumentpreparedinthe
investigationat11.00a.m.to11.45p.m.TheroughmapofthespotExh.45A
wasdrawnduringspotpanchanamaclearlydepictingastowheretheincident
took place. PW6, PW7 and PW9 have described the spot as they were
present on the spot and are well acquainted with the topography of that
place.
Thereisnothingtodoubttheexecutionofspotpanchanamaand
thecontentstherein.
(5)Exhibit49andExhibit57Arrestpanchanamaofaccused
AnkurPanwar:
PW34, PI Khot arrested the accused in the presence of PW8
Firoz and Exh.49 arrest panchanama was prepared. At the time of arrest
physicalsearchoftheaccusedwasconducted.Hismobilephoneandarticles
foundwereseized.Onhisforearmabovethewristjoint6oldhealedscarsof
injureswerenoticed.Towardsrightsideofthechestonemoreoldscarwas
59
noticed.
Arrest form was filed as per the information provided by the
accused.TheinjuriesareclearlymentionedinExh.57.Thedocuments are
preparedatthesametimeandarethepartandparceloftheproceedingsof
arrestoftheaccused.
Thearrestoftheaccusedisestablished.
(6)Exhibit61Theinquestpanchanama:
Itisadmittedbythedefence.Itismentionedthatvictimdiedon
01/06/2013at4.00p.m.outofacidburninjuries.
(7) Exh.63, Exh.64, Exh.65, Exh.66/1 to 66/3, Exh.67 and
Exh.68documents regarding travel of victim and her relatives from
Hazrat Nizamuddin Railway Station, Delhi to Bandra Railway Station,
Mumbai:
Exh.68 is admitted by the defence which is a station wise
detentionoftrainnumber12910GaribrathExpressbywhichPreetitravelled
overnight.PW10Ravikumarissued theinformationofPNRatExh.66/1to
66/3 with the certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act on
receipt of Exh.63 from ACP Crime Branch on 24/02/2014. He was the
authorizedpersontoretrievethedatafromtheserverofhisdepartment.
(8) Exhibit 74a memo, given to carry injured to Bhaba
Hospital:
On 02/05/2013PW12was handedover this memo.Withthe
60
Exhibit77andExhibit77AFIRandtheformatofFIR:
TheFIRno.36/2013wasregisteredonthestatementofPW14at
10.35a.m.on 02.05.2013againstoneunknownperson.Thedescriptionof
theaccusedisgivenasofthinbuilt,wearingyellowcolouredTshirt,shoes
andtyingscarfonhisface.ThecompleteincidentismentionedinFIRthat
whenPreeti,PW11,PW14andSunitaDahiyaalightedfromthetrainPW14
heardPreeti'sscreams.Healsofeltthatsomeliquidissplashedonhim.When
helookedbackhesawoneunknownpersonhadthrowninflammableliquid
onPreetiandwasrunningaway.Heandhisrelativesshoutedbuttheattacker
ranawaybytakingdisadvantageofthecrowd.Oneladyfromthecrowdand
oneotherpersonalsoreceivedinjuriesduetotheliquidspatteredonthem.
Preeti and Sunita were taken to Gurunanak Hospital and from there to
MasinaHospitalatBycullawhichhelearntfrompolice.Hehimselfhadalso
receivedinjuriesoutofacid.Hedidnotsuspectanybody.Thenamesofthe
injuredpersonsarementionedintheFIR.
InExh.77Aincoloumnno.4ithasbeenmentionedthattheacid
flungwithintentiontodisfigurethefaceofPreetitokillher.
CertifiedcopyofFIRfromthecourtofMagistratefiledbythe
61
prosecutiontoshowthatthecopyofFIRwassenttoMagistrateisadmissible
inevidence.ItbearsendorsementofMetropolitanMagistrate,36thCourt,that
itwasreceivedat11.00a.m.on03/05/2013.
FIR Exh.77A is the same which was submitted before the
Magistrate.NopossibilityofreplacingtheFIRisseen.
(10) Exhibit 80, 81, 82license for acid sale held by
RamkumarandMukeshBhargavandExh.163entryofacidsamplegiven
totheaccused:
PW15andPW16werehavingthebusinessofsellingacidonthe
licenseinthenameofwifeofPW15namelyVimlaBhargav,inthenameand
style'BhargavChemicalCompany'atNarela,Delhi.
Exh.163 is the entry in the name of Ankur Battery on
14/04/2013regarding2kg.Sulphuricacidsampletakenbyhim.Itwasthe
entry maintained by PW15 and PW16 which was collected by the
investigatingofficer.ItisalsomentionedthattheIDproofofthepersonwas
seenwhenhetooksample.PW16identifiedtheaccusedasthesameAnkur
receivingsulphuricacidsample.
Thus,prosecutionbroughtthefactthatthePW15andPW_16
wereinthebusinessofacidincludingsulphuricacidandtheentryof2Kg.
sulphuricacidgiventotheaccusedassamplewasmade.
(11)Exhibit88stationdiaryentrydated02/05/2013:
Itdisclosestheinformationofincidentdated02/05/2013at8.05
62
a.m.andtheFIRlodged.Itcorroboratesthe oraltestimonyofPW14and
PW17.
(12) Exhibit91memoformedicalexaminationoftheother
injuredpersons:
PW18 buckle no.3259 had carried injured persons to Bhaba
Hospital.ItismentionedinExh.91.ItwasreceivedbyPW26Dr.Manisha
Bharti. He gave original copy of Exh.91 to Bhaba Hospital. Exh.91 is the
carboncopywiththereceiptofmemobydoctorManisha.PW26examined
the injured persons Amarsingh, Sameer and Sudesha Kumari. brought by
PW18andissuedthecertificateatExh.134,135and136.
(13) Exh.96TestIdentificationparade:
Exh.95 was received by ACP, Bhosale, PW36, from PW19
informingthedateofthetestidentificationparade.
On31/01/2041arequisitionwasmadebyPW36tothecourtof
Magistrate seeking permission to hold test identification parade. As the
permissionwasgranted,on01/02/2014, Tahasildarwasrequestedtohold
testidentificationparadeviderequisitionatExh.185.OnthesamedayJail
Superintendent, Arthur Road Jail, was alsoinformed by Exh.186. Exh.187
was received from Tahasildar on 06/02/2014 appointing PW19, Naib
TahasildarN.K.ThakurtoholdtestidentificationparadeofAnkurPanwar.
On07/02/2014PW36informedJailSuperintendenttoarrangeforthetest
identificationparadeon12/02/2014aspertheinformationprovidedfrom
Tahasildar.SummonswereissuedtoNasimKhanatExh.189,SaleemShaikh
63
PW7atExh.190andSameerShaikhPW6atExh.191.
PW19conductedthetestidentificationparadeon12/02/2014
for seven witnesses. He selected two panchas and held test identification
parade.Thenamesofthedummypersonsmadetostandwiththeaccusedare
mentionedinExh.96.Allprecautionsweretakenbyhimaspertheguidelines
fortestidentificationparade.Theaccusedwasaskedtochangetheclothesif
he desires so. One by one all the witnesses were called in identification
parade room. PW6, PW7, PW9, PW11, PW16 identified the accused. A
separate chart for each of the witnesses regarding identification of the
accusedbythemwasprepared.Afterthetestidentificationparadewasover
Exh.96waspreparedinrespectofthecompleteproceedings.Itwassignedby
twopanchasandPW19.
Theevidenceregarding testidentification paradeheldandthe
identification of the accused by the witnesses could not be assailed by
defence.Nopossibilityoftheaccusedbeingshowntothewitnessespriorto
the test identification parade nor any deliberate act nor serious lacuna in
holdingtestidentificationparadeisbroughtinthecrossexamination.
(14) Exh.101, Exh.102, Exh.103 and Exh.104Medical
examinationoftheaccused:
AftertheaccusedAnkurwasarrestedhewas sentformedical
examinationforexaminationoftheoldhealedscarsofinjurieshehad.PW36
issued a letter Exh.101 to Forensic Science Department J.J. Hospital on
20/01/2014 to rule the possibility of causing injures by sulphuric acid.
64
AccordinglyateamofdoctorsincludingPW21,examinedtheaccusedand
opinedvideExh.102theinjuriesasmostlikelytobecausedbysecondary
dropsofcorrosiveliquid.ThequerywasplacedbyPW36videExh.103toget
clarifiedwhether concentratedsulphuric acidcomes under the categoryof
corrosivesubstance/liquidcategory.Theopinionwasgivenbythesameteam
ofdoctorsaffirmingtheconcentratedsulphuricacidascorrosivesubstance
underliquidcategoryofpoison.
Thedoctorestablishedthattheoldhealedinjuryscarsnoticedon
thepersonofaccusedaremostlikelytobecausedbysecondarydropsof
corrosive liquid and that concentrated sulphuric is corrosive liquid. No
possibilityofoilburninjuriesisevenexpressedbythedoctors.
(15) Exhibit 107, 108, 110, 138, 148 and 152papers from
MasinaHospitalinrespectoftreatmentofPreetifrom02/05/2013upto
18/05/2013:
On02/05/2013PreetiwasbroughttotheMasinaHospital.As
per writing in Exh.138 she was brought by relatives with the history of
accidental acid burns. But thereafter it was clarified that those were
homicidal chemical burns. Preeti was conscious and responding to verbal
commandsbutwasnotabletospeak.Thevoicewasnotclear.Therewas
bleedingthroughrylestubes.Theburnwascalculatedas20to25%.Exh.138
disclosestheburnsnoticedonface,oralcavity,eyes,nose,ear,neck,both
upper limbs,chest,abdomen and back.The injuries were deep burns and
opinedasacidburns.Shewascontinuouslyundertreatment.On18/05/2013
65
66
67
339.Itisonlythefirstnamewithoutfathersnameandsurname.
(19) Exh.175, 176, 177, 178, 179Station diary entry of
carryingaccusedtoJ.J.Hospitalformedicalexamination:
On20/01/2014at8.45a.m.theentryisseenatExh.175taking
himformedicalexaminationandasreturnedat1.30p.m.PW34,PIKhot,
gavearequisitiontohandoverthecustodyoftheaccusedon20/01/2014
fromlockuptopolicepersonalsPN28493andB.C.970651videExhibit176.
ThelockupregisterentryinExh.179showsthattheaccusedcameoutat
10.05a.m.on20/01/2014andwasgiveninthecustodyofPN28493.
EntryatExh.179ischallengedonthegroundthatthenameis
notwrittenasAnkurbutitisasAnkush.However,inExh.179atthebottom
oneaccusedfromDCB,CIDisshownincustody.Therefore,itismerely a
defectivewriting.Thecrimenumberisproperlywrittenas120/2013withthe
nameoftheinvestigatingofficerasACPBhosale.
(20) Exh.192TransferofinvestigationfromBandraRailway
policestation,Crimenumber36/2013,toDCB,CID:
In criminalwritpetition no.2900of 2013filedbyPW14the
investigation was transferred to DCB, CID where the special investigation
teamwasformedincludingPW36PrafulBhosale,PIKhot,PSIDhamaland
PSIGhuge.
(21)Exh.204Simcardpurchasedbytheaccused:
Accused had purchased Airtel sim card from PW37 and had
giventheformatExh.204whichwaswithhisphotographandphotocopyof
68
identiycardissuedbyelectioncommission.
Submissionsofboththesides:
124.
SUBMISSIONSADVANCEDBYLD.SPP:
Ld.SpecialPublicProsecutorShriUjjwalNikamsubmittedthat
theprosecutionhasexaminedeyewitnessestoprovetheactoftheaccused.
Thereare4personsPW6,PW7,PW9andPW11,whohadseentheaccused
flinging acid on Preeti. They are natural witnesses. They all have given
reasonsastowhytheywereatrailwaystationatthetimeofincident.PW11
andPW14were withPreeti.Theyhave noenmityagainstthe accusedto
deposeagainsthim.PW6andPW14aretheinjuredwitnesses.Therefore,
theirtestimonyisbelievable.Thereiscorroboratorycontemporaneousfacts
anddocumentaryevidenceshowingthatArt.Cwasbroughtbytheaccused
Ankur.Itwaswith2kg.acidwhichhehadobtainedfromPW16.According
toPW21,itisastrongcorrosiveliquid.Thesameliquidwasfoundonthe
clothesofPreetiandSunita,onplatformno.3onthefloor,andinthescalp
hair ofPreeticollectedafter her death.The accountofeye witnessesthat
accusedthrewacidhasbeenproved.Healedscarsontheforearmandchestof
theaccusedarealsoopinedasburnscausedduetosecondarydropsofacid.
The panch witnesses on seizure of articles from spot, hospital and on
memorandumofstatementofaccusedatExh.41and42provedthechainof
circumstances from the preparation upto the execution of the crime. The
defencethoughhastakenpleaofalibiandthattheoldhealedscarscanbe
69
causedduetooilburn,but,hasnotbroughtanythingintheevidencetoprove
thesame.Theburdenoffactswithinhisknowledgehastobeprovedbythe
accused.Thesubmissionsadvancedarethattheaccusedcausedthedeathof
Preeti,whichwaspreplanned.
125.
proposalofmarriageoutofhisunilaterallove,hecookedaplan,followed
Preetiandflungacidonherfaceinacrowdedplacefromwherehecould
flee. Conduct of the accused before and after incident is material which
proved to be an additional link in the chain of the circumstances. It is
vehementlyarguedthatafterfollowingPreetifromDelhitheaccusedcould
succeedinMumbaitoexecutehisplan.Theaccusedcouldnotgetarrestedtill
January,2014asPreetiwasnotabletospeakandshewascluelessastowhy
somebodywilltrytokillher.ItisonlywhenNituSolanki'sstatementwas
recordedthenameofAnkurappearedwhichlendsupporttothedoubtshown
by Preeti earlier. Pawankumar Gehalan was though arrested there was no
nexustoconnecthimtothecrime.ItwasonlytheaccusedAnkurwhowas
tryingtobeawayfromtheinvestigation.Afterthearrestwithoutdelay,test
identificationparadewasconducted.Itisthedisclosureoftheaccusedwhich
lead investigation to reach upto obtaining the acid by the accused from
PW16. Detection of sulphuric acid in articles is also the important link
connectingtheaccusedtothecrime.Hence,accordingtohim,allthecharges
70
framedagainsttheaccusedstandprovedbeyondreasonabledoubt.
126.
positionondifferentaspects:
1.
Ondelayinrecordingstatement
Onthepointofomissioninthedeposition.
JASWANTSINGHVersesSTATEOFHARYANA[(2000)4SupremeCourt
Cases484]
3.
Ontheclarificationsoughtbyprosecution.
i.
CHANDRASHEKHARSURESHCHANDRABHATTANDOTHERS
VersusSTATEOFMAHARASHTRA[(2000)10SupremeCourtCases582],
''LearnedcounselfortheappellantscontendedthatPW2cannot
bebelievedforsomanyreasons,mainamongwhichisthathe
madeimprovementsonhisversiontosuittheprosecutioncase.
Hestatedinstancesofsuchimprovements.Wehaveappliedour
mindandnoticedthatthoughthereweresomemarginal
variationsoncertainaspectsasbetweenhisstatementrecorded
undersection161oftheCodeofCriminalProcedureandthe
testimonygiveninCourt,suchvariationscannotbedubbedas
improvementsmadewithanysinistermotive.Theyare
71
elaborationselicitedbythePublicProsecutorduringthe
examinationinchief.ItistheprerogativeofthePublic
Prosecutortoelicitsuchpointsfromawitnessashedeems
necessaryforthecase.NoPublicProsecutorcanbenailedtothe
statementrecordedunderSection161oftheCode.We
scrutinizedthesocalledimprovementsfromtheangleandwe
aresatisfiedthatPW2hadbasicallyremainedatthesame
positionwhichhehasstatedintheFIR''.
ii.
ESHERSINGVersusSTATEOFA.P.[(2004)11Supreme
CourtCases585],
''Amereelaborationcannotbetermedasdiscrepancy.Whenthe
basicfeaturesarestated,unlesstheelaborationisofsuchnature
thatitcreatesadifferentcontourorcolouroftheevidence,the
samecannotbesaidtohavetotallychangedthecomplexionof
thecase.
4.
onminorinconsistenciesintheevidenceofwitnesses
JAIKARANANDOTHERSVersusSTATEOFU.P.[2005SupremeCourt
Cases(Cri.)812],
''Afterconsideringhisevidenceintoto,theHighCourtfoundthe
evidencetoimplicitlytruthfulandreliable.Thoughhispresence
wasattemptedtobeshowndoubtful,wedonotfindanyreason
toaccepttheplea.Hispresenceattheplaceofincidentwas
explainedandhisevidencecannotbethrownoutasunreliable
merelybecauseinsomecaseshewasacoaccusedwiththe
deceasedSuryaPrakashSingh''.
''Unlessthemedicalevidenceinitsturngoessofarthatit
completelyrulesoutallpossibilitieswhatsoeverofinjuriestaking
placeinthemannerallegedbyeyewitnesses,thetestimonyofthe
eyewitnessescannotbethrownoutonthegroundofalleged
inconsistencybetweenitandthemedicalevidence''.
5.
Factsbroughtincrossexamination:
TARUNBORAALIASALOKHAZARIKAVersusSTATEOFASSAM[(2002)7
Supreme Court Cases (Cri.) 39 or (2002) Supreme Court Cases (Cri.)
1568],
72
''Incrossexaminationthewitnessstatedasunder:
AccusedTarunBoradidnotblindmyeyesnorheassaultedme.
''Thispartofcrossexaminationissuggestiveofthepresenceof
accusedTarunBorainthewholeepisode.Thiswillclearly
suggestthepresenceoftheaccusedTarunBoraasadmitted.The
onlydenialisthattheaccuseddidnotparticipateinblindfolding
theeyesofthewitnessnorassaultedhim''.
''WehavealreadynoticedthatinthecrossexaminationofPW1,
asuggestionwasputtohimthattheappellantTarunBorahad
neitherparticipatedinblindfoldinghimnorassaultedhim.This
isclearlyindicativeofthepresenceoftheappellantand
participationinthekidnappingepisode''.
6.
predicted.
RAMMI ALIAS RAMESHWAR Versus STATE OF M.P. [(2000) Supreme
CourtCases(Cri.)26],
''PW9RamDulare(apassengerinthebus)inhisevidencesaid
thathesawtheappellantsattackingthedeceasedwithchopper
andknives. Thetrialcourtpointedoutthathedidnotinform
themembersofthefamilyofthedeceasednordidhebringthis
mattertothenoticeofthepolice.TheSessionsJudgeregarded
theaboveasaconductincompatiblewiththenormalbehaviour
ofapersonwitnessingsuchacrime.
Sucharemarkontheconductofapersonwhowitnessedthe
murderousattackisleastjustifiedintherealmofappreciationof
evidence.Thiscourthassaidtimeandagainthattheposteven
conductofawitnessvariesfrompersontoperson.Itcannotbea
castironreactiontobefollowedasamodelbyeveryone
witnessingsuchevent.Differentpersonswouldreactdifferently
onseeinganyviolenceandtheirbehaviourandconductwould,
therefore,bedifferent.Wehavenotnoticedanythingwhichcan
beregardedasaabnormalconductofPW9RamDulare''.
7.
Onthepointthatdifferentpersonsreactdifferentlytotheincident.
73
''Everypersonwhowitnessesaseriouscrimereactsinhisown
way.Somearestunned,becomespeechlessandstandrootedto
thespot.Somebecomehystericandstartwailing.Somestart
shoutingforhelp.Othersrunawaytokeepthemselvesasfar
removedfromthespotaspossible.Yetothersrushtotherescue
ofthevictim,evengoingtotheextentofcounterattackingthe
assailants.Somemayremaintightlipped,overawedeitheron
accountoftheantecedentsoftheassailantsorthreatsgivenby
him.Eachonereactsinhisspecialwayeveninsimilar
circumstances,leavealone,thevaryingnaturedependingupona
varietyofcircumstances.Thereisnosetruleofnaturalreaction.
Todiscardtheevidenceofawitnessonthegroundthathedid
notreactinanyparticularmanneristoappreciateevidenceina
whollyunrealisticandunimaginativeway''.
8.
Onhearsayevidence
SATISHKUMARVersusTHESTATE[1996CRI.L.J.265]
''(A)EvidenceAct(Iof1872),S.145Crossexamination
StatementsmadetoPolicebywitnessNotadmissiblein
evidenceSuchstatementcanbeusedonlyforpurposeof
contradictingwitnessinviewofprovisionsofS.162,Cr.P.C.''
9.
OnthepointthatstatementofI.O.basedonthestatementofother
witness,notadmissible.
RAM KISHAN AND OTHERS Versus STATE OF U.P. [(2006) 1 Supreme
CourtCases(Cri.)603]
''Thefatherinlawofthedeceasedwasnotexaminedasa
witness.Therefore,thestatementgivenbytheinvestigating
officermusthavebeenbasedonthestatementofthefatherin
lawofthedeceasedrecordedundersection161oftheCodeof
CriminalProcedure.Thestatementgivenbytheinvestigating
officerregardingthisfactisnotdirectlyadmissibleinlaw''.
10.
OncrypticinformationregistrationofFIRisnotexpected.
74
RAMSINHBAVAJIJADEJAV/S.STATEOFGUJARAT[1994SupremeCourt
Cases(Cri)609],''
''Ifthetelephonicmessageiscrypticinnatureandtheofficerin
charge,proceedstotheplaceofoccurrenceonbasisofthat
informationtofindoutthedetailsofthenatureoftheoffence
itself,thenitcannotbesaidthattheinformation,whichhadbeen
receivedbyhimontelephone,shallbedeemedtobefirst
informationreport.Theobjectandpurposeofgivingsuch
telephonicmessageisnottolodgethefirstinformationreport,
buttorequesttheofficerinchargeofthepolicestationtoreach
theplaceofoccurrence.Ontheotherhand,theinformation
givenontelephoneisnotcrypticandonbasisofthat
information,theofficerincharge,isprimafaciesatisfiedabout
thecommissionofacognizableoffenceandheproceedsfromthe
policestationafterrecordingsuchinformation,toinvestigate
suchoffencethenanystatementmadebyanypersoninrespect
ofthesaidoffenceincludingabouttheparticipants,shallbe
deemedtobeastatementmadebyapersontothepoliceofficer
inthecourseofinvestigation,coveredbySection162ofCode.
Thatstatementcannotbetreatedasfirstinformationreport.By
anytelephonicinformationaboutcommissionofacognizable
offenceirrespectiveofthenatureanddetailsofsuchinformation
cannotbetreatedasfirstinformationreport''.
127.
section313ofCr.P.C.andtheratio'slaiddownthereto:
i
ii
iii
iv
128.
SWAPANPATRAANDOTHERSVersusSTATEOF
W.B.[(1999)9SupremeCourtCases242],
JOSEPHS/O.KOOVELIPOULOV/S.STATEOF
KERALA[AIR(2000)Supremecourt1608],
STATEOFPUNJABVersusKARNAILSINGH
[(2003)11SupremeCourtCases271]
ANTHONYD'SOUZAANDOTHERSVersusSTATE
OFKARNATAKA[(2003)1SupremeCourtCases
259],
Onpleaofalibipointingoutthatitistheburdenofaccusedto
provehisabsenceatthesceneofcrimeatthetimeofitscommission:
75
i
ii.
STATEOFHARYANAVersusSHERSINGHANDOTHERS
[1981SupremeCourtCases(Cri)421],
BACHITTARSINGHANDANOTHERVersusSTATE
OFPUNJAB[2003SupremeCourtCases(Cri)233].
SUBMISSIONSADVANCEDBYDEFENCEADVOCATE:
129.
challenged the case of prosecution firstly on the ground that it was not
sulphuricacidwhichcausedthedeathofPreetiandsecondlythattheaccused
ismadescapegoatbyfabricatingthedocumentsandtutoringthewitnesses.It
isafter8monthsoftheincidenttheaccusedwasarrested.OnePawankumar
was arrested but father of the victim wanted to save him, though having
knowledgethathewastheperpetrator,hefiledaffidavitExh.213Ainthebail
applicationfiledbyPawankumartherefore,investigatingofficercaughtAnkur
Panwaranddischargedtherealaccused.Defencecounselstrenuouslyargued
that the entire evidence of prosecution's case is fabricated by the police
machinery. Art.C is available anywhere being a common article. The
eyewitnessesaregotupwitnesseswhodeposedunderthepressureofpolice.
Thewordswereputinthemouthofthewitnessestherefore,therearevarious
improvementsmadeinthedepositionmadebythewitnessesinthecourt.
The cause for death of Preeti is seriously disputed and challenged on the
groundthatitwasduetomedicalnegligenceandnotbecauseoftheacid
burns.TheinjuredwitnessesPW6&PW14wereexaminedbyDr.Sandip
Kale, who has not been examined as prosecution witness. Therefore, the
prosecutionfailedtoprovethatsomepersonswereinjuredintheincident.
76
PreetiwasfirstlyadmittedinBhabaHospitalandthereaftertakentoMasina
Hospital.ShewasnevertakentoGurunanakHospitalbutjusttoshowthat
shewastakentosomehospital,thedocumentswereprepared.
130.
Toxicology'authoredbyDr.C.K.Parikh,theopinionofPW21ischallenged
onthegroundthatthescarswereappearingwithouttricklingmarks,which
was a clever statement. The weapon used is acid. CAreports disclose the
presenceofsulphuricacidwhilememorandumofpostmortemdisclosesthe
possibility of nitric acid. The forensic expert is not called as a witness to
identifytheweapon,thesulphuricacid.DefencecitedthejudgementinState
of Maharashtra V/s. Jagdish B. Shah [1992 CRILJ 2394], where the
Hon'bleSupremeCourtobservedthat
''the case rests entirely and exclusively on the chemical
analyser'sreportbecauseunlessitisestablishedthatthepowder
which is alleged to have been seized from the accused come
within the definition of, 'a dangerous drug', it would not be
possibletosustaintheconviction''.
131.
Shealsoadvancedargumentsthatinbatteriesdiluteacidisused
whiletheacidfoundinArt.Cwasconcentratedacid.Accordingtoherthe
basictooli.e.,Art.Cisfabricatedone.Therewasnoneedofdesealingand
resealingArt.C.However,justtoreplacethearticleitwasdone.Thechainof
custodyof'dabba'Art.Cisnotexplained.Pawankumarwastherealaccused
whowasarrestedbuttosavehimthefalseevidenceisbroughtinthecourt.
77
132.
Further,itwaspointedoutthatthestationdiaryentriesarenot
maintainedtocorroboratetheinvestigationbycitingthejudgmentincase
LalitakumariV/s.GovernmentofUttarPradesh[(2014)2SCC1],inpara
no.65
ItisrelevantpointthatFIRbookismaintainedwithitsnumber
givenonannualbasis.ThismeansthateachFIRhasaunique
annualnumbergiventoit.Thisisonsimilarlinesasthecase
numbersgivenincourts.Duetothisreasonitispossibletokeep
a strict control and track over the registration of FIR's by a
supervisory police officers and by the courts, whenever
necessary.CopyofeachFIRissenttosuperiorofficersandto
thejudicialmagistrateconcerned.
It is submitted that though the information was received on
phone by PI Dhopavkar, inspite of disclosure of information of cognizable
offence,theFIRwasnotregisterednoritwassenttothejudicialMagistrate.
It is alleged that the FIR previously lodged by PW14 was replaced and
78
133.
Itisfurtherchallengedthatthetestidentificationparadewasnot
held as per the guidelines of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. Mere
identificationofthewitnessesisnotenoughtoinferthatthewitnesseshave
identifiedtheaccused.
134.
Maharashtra,[2016ALLMR(Cri.)1]inparano.86and97theobservations
arepointedouttoshowthatseizureofregisterhavingentryatExh.163isnot
broughtbeforethecourtbyproperprocedurerequiredbylaw.
135.
Thedefencecounseladdedthattheeyewitnesseshavenotgiven
thecorroboratoryaccountofincidentandtherefore,thereisnoevidenceto
provethechargeframedagainsttheaccusedbeyondreasonabledoubt.
136.
ThedefencehasfurtherreliedthejudgementincaseofVenkata
SubbaReddyandothersV/s.Emperor[AIR1931Madras689],toshow
that,merestrongsuspicionisnotenough.Benefitofdoubtmustbegivento
theaccused.
79
137.
groundthatitismerelyahearsayevidence,notadmissibleintheevidence,it
ispointedoutthatinBabubhaiBhimabhaiBokhiriaV/s.StateofGujarath,
2014CRILJ2290SupremeCourtitisobservedthat
''Exceptapprehensionexpressedbythedeceased,thestatement
madebyhimdoesnotrelatetothecauseofdeathortoany
circumstance of the transaction which resulted in his death.
Onceweholdso,thenotedoesnotsatisfytherequirementof
section32oftheAct''.
138.
DefencecounselhasalsoreliedupontheMateriaMedicafrom
thebook'AnnalsonThoracicMedicine'toshowthatduetohighintracuff
pressureTracheoesophagealFistulawasacquired.Itismerelyanopinionof
theauthornotprovedwiththeevidenceofmedicalexpertbeforethecourt.
139.
Shealsopointedoutthatiftheacidissulphuricacidandspilt
overthebodytheskiniscorrodedandblackenedbutifitisnitricacidit
becomes yellow. The skin colour is shown as yellowish in postmortem
examination.
140.
Thedefencecounselsummedupwiththesubmissionsthatthere
80
MAJORPOINTSUNDERCONSIDERATIONONFACTSANDLAW:
1.
141.
FirstInformationReport:
FIRwaslodgedbyPW14afterhereturnedfromBhabaHospital.
PW17telephonicallyinformedPIDhopavkar,PW31abouttheincidentwho
askedhimtosecurethespotandtodrawspotpanchanama.Itisacryptic
informationgiventoPW31.Firstlytheinjuredweretakentohospitaland
then FIR was lodged. Therefore, no delay is seen in lodging FIR. All the
activities of carrying victim to hospital and enquiry were simultaneously
goingon.
142.
explainedthattheobjectandpurposeofgivingtelephonicmessageisnotto
lodgeFIRbuttorequesttheofficerinchargeofthepolicestationtoreachthe
placeofoccurrence.Therefore,thedelayoftwohoursinregistrationofFIRis
explainedbytheprosecution.Itisnotthecasethatpolicemachinerywas
thinkingovertheincidenttoinvolvethisaccusedinthecrime.TheFIRwas
lodgedagainsttheunknownpersons.Theaccusedcameintheclutchesof
investigatorsafter8monthsoftheincident.Therefore,therearenoremote
chancesthattheFIRwasfabricated.
143.
personinjured.Eyewitnessescorroboratedthesame.TheFIRwasforwarded
to the Magistrate on the very next day. No illegality, irregularity or
81
fabricationsofthedocumentisseen.
2.
144.
Stationdiaryentry:
Exh.203 shows that FIR was sent to judicial magistrate on
145.
3.
146.
Motiveandintentoftheaccused:
IncaseofR.ShivajiV.SStateofKeralaAIR2013SC651,itis
82
describedthat
Motiveisprimarilyknowntotheaccusedhimselfandit
therefore,itmaynotbepossiblefortheprosecutiontoexplain
whatactuallypromptedorexcitedtheaccusedtocommita
particularcrime.Inacaseofcircumstantialevidence,motive
maybeconsideredasacircumstance,whichisarelevantfactor
forthepurposeofassessingevidence,intheeventthatthereis
nounambiguousevidencetoprovetheguiltoftheaccused.
Motivelosesallitssignificanceinacaseofdirectevidence
providedbyeyewitnesses,wherethesameisavailable,forthe
reasonthatinsuchacase,theabsenceorinadequacyofmotive,
cannotstandinthewayofconviction.However,theabsenceof
motiveinacasedependingentirelyoncircumstantialevidence,is
afactorthatweighsinfavouroftheaccusedasitoftenforms
thefulcrumoftheprosecutionstory.
147.
whatpreciselywouldhaveimpelledthemurderstokillaparticularperson.
Allthattheprosecutioninmanycasescouldpointtoisthepossiblemental
elementwhichcouldhavebeenthecauseforthemurder.
148.
Nodoubtitisasoundprincipletorememberthateverycriminal
actwasdonewithamotivebutitsnotthatnocriminaloffencewouldhave
beencommittediftheprosecutionhasfailedtoprovetheexactmotiveofthe
accused to commit it. When the prosecution succeeded in showing the
possibilityofsomeangerfortheaccusedtowardsthevictim,theinabilityto
furtherputonrecordthemannerinwhichsuchangerwouldhavecomeupin
themindoftheoffendertosuchadegreeastoimpelhimtocommitthe
offence cannot be construed as a fatal weakness of the prosecution. It is
almost impossible for the prosecution to unknot the full dimension of the
83
mentalstateofanaccusedtowardsthepersonagainstwhomhecommitted
crime.
149.
Themotiveisinferredfromtheconductoftheaccusedandthe
150.
AppreciatingtheobservationsinBabubhaiBhimabhaiBokhiria
V/s.StateofGujarath,citedsupraitisseenthat thefactsofthecaseare
differentasonthebasis ofthesaidnote thepetitionerhadsuspectedthe
accusedandprayedtosummontofacethetrial.Thepresentcircumstances
aredifferent.Inthecaseinhandaftercollectingalltheevidencewhichwent
againsttheaccusedtheinferencewasdrawninrespectofhismotive.The
statement of PW13 cracked the mystery and the accused was suspected.
Therefore,theobservationsarenotapplicabletothepresentcase.
151.
Whentheconsistentevidenceofalleyewitnessesisavailablefor
theprosecutionthereisatallnoneedtolookforcorroborationnortoinfer
themotive.Inadditiontotheeyewitnessesthereisampleevidenceonrecord
tobringthemotiveoftheaccused.Thus,whatevertheevidenceisavailableit
84
issufficienttoinferthataccusedbeingdefiedbyPreetionhisproposalhe
plannedthecrimeandexecutedit.
4.
152.
Omissions,contradictionsandimprovement:
Omission of the words 'pakdo pakdo' is pointed out in the
statementofPW14recordedundersection161ofCr.P.C.Thecontradictionis
shownintheevidenceofPW9thatPreetiwasstandingwhenshewastapped
fromherbacksidewhileaspertheprosecutionscaseshewaswalking.Inthe
statementofPW16theword'sale'isshownwhilehedeposedthathedidnot
stateso.
153.
supraitisobservedthat,
''Section161(2)oftheCoderequiresthepersonmakingthe
statementstoanswertrulyallquestionsrelatingtosuchcaseput
tohimbysuchofficer....Itwould,therefore,dependonthe
questionsputbythepoliceofficer.Itistruethatacertain
statementmaynowbeusedunderSection162tocontradictsuch
witnessinthemannerprovidedbySection145oftheIndian
EvidenceAct,1872.Previously,thelawwasasenunciatedin
TahsildarSinghV.StateofUP.as:
(ii)Omissions,unlessbynecessaryimplicationbedeemedtobe
partofthestatement,cannotbeusedtocontradictthestatement
madeinthewitnessbox.
''NowtheexplanationtoSection162providesthatanomissionto
stateafactinthestatementmayamounttoacontradiction.
However,theexplanationmakesitclearthattheomissionmust
beasignificantoneandotherwiserelevanthavingregardto
thecontextinwhichsuchomissionoccursandwhetherany
omissionamountstoacontradictionintheparticularcontext
shallbeaquestionoffact.
85
Thus,theomissionandcontradictionaspointedoutarenot
significantandisnotfataltotheprosecutionnoraffectedthe
testimonyofthesewitnesses.
5.
154.
Factsdiscoveredu/s.27ofIndianEvidenceAct.
PW35VijayDhamalwenttoDelhialongwithPW30PSIGhuge
on04/01/2014forinvestigationinwhichNituSolankidisclosedthenameof
thepresentaccused.Therefore,theymadeinquirywiththeaccused. While
seeking information of his whereabouts on 01/05/2013 he noticed some
injuries over the hands of accused Ankur. Accused was giving evasive
answers.Heavoidedtogivehismobilenumbertherefore,itwasobtained
fromhisparents.Ontheinformationcollectedthephonenumberwasfound
inthenameofthepresentaccused.Therefore,on16/01/2014theybrought
theaccusedtoMumbaiwherehewasarrested.
155.
Forapplicationofsection27ofEvidenceAct,admissibleportion
156.
86
restrictedtoaphysicalormaterialfactwhichcanbeperceivedbythesenses.
Itdoesincludeamentalfact.Theinformationpermittedtobeadmittedin
evidence is confined to that portion of the information which '' distinctly
relatestothefacttherebydiscovered.Buttheinformationtogetadmissibility
neednotbesotruncatedastomakeitinsensibleorincomprehensible.The
extentofinformationadmittedshouldbeconsistentwithunderstandability.
157.
IncaseofANTERSINGHVersusSTATEOFRAJASTHAN[2005
158.
Exh.163isaregisterentryinthenameofAnkurbatteries.After
disclosureofthefactofobtainingacidtheinvestigationproceededinthat
directionreachinguptotheregisterhavingentry.itwasbeforeimpositionof
RegulationonSaleofAcidinIndiainJuly,2013.
159.
Exh.163isproducedbyPW16whowasinitscustody.Nodoubt
canberaisedregardingitscustodywithhim.Admittedlyitwasnotseizedbut
the oral evidence thatthe entrywas maintainedand was handed over to
87
policebyPW16cannotbekeptaside.Furthermore,heidentifiedtheaccused
as the person to whom he had given 2 Kg. acid. Thus, Exh.163 is only
corroboratory in nature. Therefore, the facts and circumstances being
different, the observations in case of Salman Salim Khan V/s. State of
Maharashtracitedsupraarenotapplicable.
6.
160.
TestIdentificationParade.
Theideaofthetestofidentificationparadeistotesttheveracity
ofthewitnessinthequestionofhiscapacitytoidentify,fromamongseveral
personsmadetostandinaqueue,anunknownpersonwhomthewitnesshad
seenatthetimeofoccurrence.Themainquestionstakenintoconsideration
inthiscontextare
i.Whethertherewasopportunitytoseetheaccused
ii.Whethertheycouldrememberbyfacetheaccusedperson;&
iii.Whethertheycouldidentifythembysuchmemoryinthecourt.
161.
Ensuresthatinvestigationisproceedingonarighttrack.
ii.
Ensuresthattheeyewitnessessmemoryregardingtheidentityof
theaccused.
88
162.
Ascitedbytheprosecution STATEOFMAHARASHTRAVersus
SURESH[2000SupremeCourtCases(Cri.)263]itisobservedthat,
''Ifpotholesweretobeferretedoutfromtheproceedingsofthe
Magistratesholdingsuchparadespossiblynotestidentification
paradecanescapefromoneortwolapses.Ifascrutinyismade
fromthatanglealoneandtheresultoftheparadeistreatedas
vitiatedeverytestidentificationparadewouldbecomeunusable.
Weremindourselvesthatidentificationparadesarenotprimarily
meantforthecourt.Theyaremeantforinvestigationpurposes.
Theobjectofconductingatestidentificationparadeistwofold.
Firstistoenablethewitnessestosatisfythemselvesthatthe
prisonerwhomtheysuspectisreallytheonewhowasseenby
theminconnectionwiththecommissionofthecrime.Secondis
tosatisfytheinvestigatingauthoritiesthatthesuspectisthereal
personwhomthewitnesseshadseeninconnectionwiththesaid
occurrence.Sotheofficerconductingthetestidentification
paradeshouldensurethatthesaidobjectoftheparadeis
achieved.Ithepermitsdilutionofthemodalitytobefollowedin
aparade,heshouldseetoitthatsuchrelaxationwouldnot
impairthepurposeforwhichtheparadeisheld''.
163.
IncaseofRAVINDERKUMARANDANOTHERVersusSTATEOF
PUNJAB[2001SupremeCourtCases(Cri)1384]ascitedbyLd.SPP.The
perceptionofparticularfactisappreciatedthat,
''Thecontentionisthatitisnotpossibleforanyperson,muchless
arickshawpullerlikePW5,torememberwhoexactly
employedhimtocarryaparticularloadonaparticularday,after
thelapseofseveraldaysthereafter.Thiscontentionisraised
overlookingthepsychologicalphenomenonthathumanmemory
isveryoftenaconditionedcharacteristic.Anythingwhichhasany
specialorpeculiarlineamentcancreateanimpactonthehuman
mindlastingforlong.Whileitistruethatroutineeventsina
man'sdaytodaylikemaynotremaininhismindforbeing
rememberedlater,anyoddorbizarrehappeningsinvolvinghim
orinfrontofhimhavethetendencytostickinhismindindelibly.
Ifthereisanycauseforhimtorecollectsucheventsagainthey
getrefreshedagain.Thatiswhyheisabletonarratesuchevents
withalldetailswhenaskedtodoso.Thisappliestoallwitnesses
89
incriminalcasesinvolvingseriousoffences.Normallynoporter
orrickshawpullercouldspeakfrommemoryastowhomor
whoseloadhecarriedmanydaysago.Butifthecarryingofa
loadonaparticulardaywassoonfollowedbytheflashof
sensationalnewsinthelocalitythattheloadcontainedthe
corpseofamurderedperson,theinstinctiverelationofthe
carrieristobecomeinquisitivetoknowwhetheritwasinrespect
oftheloadwhichhehimselfcarried.Ifthatinquisitivenesshad
turnedpositiveitisextremelyprobablethatallthevividdetails
relatingtothateventwouldstickinhismemory.Forhimsuch
eventwouldnothavebeenausualoccurrencebut
extraordinarilyoddandqueer.Hence,itisnotlikelytofadeout
thecanvasofhismind.Itwillbeunrealistictojettisonthe
testimonyofsuchawitnessonthemeregroundthathecouldnot
haverememberedafterthelapseofalongperiodtheidentityof
thepersonwhoengagedhimandalsooftheloadwhichhe
carried.We,therefore,repelsuchcontention''.
164.
Hence,whenthewitnesseshadnoopportunitytoseetheaccused
priortotheholdingoftheidentificationparadeaswellasalsonounfairaid
andassistancewas givenbythe investigating authorityastofacilitate the
identificationoftheaccused,thentheirevidencecanbeaccepted.
165.
TheidentifyingwitnessesarePW6,PW7,PW9andPW11who
sawtheaccusedatthetimeoftheincident.PW16sawhimwhenaccused
procuredacid.Theevidenceofeyewitnessesidentifyingtheaccusedremained
unshattered.
7.
166.
C.C.T.V.Footage:
CDofC.C.T.V.footagedataisfiledonrecordbutthesameisnot
usedbytheprosecution.Defencechallengedthesame onthegroundthat
90
167.
StateofU.P[2015CRILJ1690],citedsupraarenotapplicable.
168.
InthepresentcaseC.C.T.V.Footagewasaskedbythedefence.
Thesameisproducedonrecord.ThecopyofCDwassuppliedtothedefence.
Itismadeclearbytheprosecutionthattheimagesareuncleartoidentifythe
persontherefore,itisnotused.Thedefencewasatlibertyeithertoprovethe
sameindependentlythroughdefenceevidenceorbyshowingittothecourt
thatsomeotherpersonisseeninC.C.T.V.Footage.Haditbeenanidentifiable
imagethecourtwouldbeinpositiontoverifythesame.Butitwasnotused
inspiteofitsavailabilityatearlystageoftrial.Therefore,itcannotbesaid
thatitwasthebestevidenceandismissing,northatitwasdeliberateattempt
onthepartoftheprosecutiontoconcealthesame.
169.
defence.Thesameisproducedonrecord.ThecopyofCDwassuppliedtothe
defence.Itismadeclearbytheprosecutionthattheimagesareunclearto
identifythepersontherefore,itisnotused.Thedefencewasatlibertyeither
91
toprovethesameindependentlythroughdefenceevidenceorbyshowingit
tothecourtthatsomeotherpersonisseeninC.C.T.V.footage.Haditbeenan
identifiableimagethecourtwouldbeinpositiontoverifythesame.Butit
wasnotusedinspite of its availabilityatearlystage of trial.Therefore,it
cannotbesaidthatitwasthebestevidenceandismissing,northatitwas
deliberate attempt on the part of the prosecution to conceal the same.
Therefore, there is no scope to draw adverse inference against the
prosecution.
8.
170.
SpotPanchanama:
Crimesceneisanimportantpartofinvestigationifdoneproperly
92
171.
Inthecourtroomwhenthesealedpacketwasopenedtherewas
onemorebrownpaperpackinsidebuttheletterswerefounddestroyeddue
tothefumesofacidwhichwasnoticeableinthecourtroom.
9.
172.
InquestPanchnama:
An investigation under Section 174 is limited in scope and is
confinedtotheascertainmentoftheapparentcauseofdeath.Itisconcerned
withdiscoveringwhetherinagivencasethedeathwasaccidental,suicidalor
homicidalorcausedbyanimalandinwhatmannerorbywhatweaponor
instrument the injuries on the body appear to have been inflicted. It is
seriouslychallengedthatsomecontentsregardingtheinformationgivenat
thetimeoffirstadmissionofPreetiinhospital.Thedetailsoftheactofcrime
isnotnecessarytoberecordedintheinquestreport.Thequestionregarding
thedetailsregardingunderwhatcircumstancesthecrimewascommittedor
whoistheinformantandwhoarethewitnessesofthecrimeisforeigntothe
ambitandscopeofproceedingsunderSection174.Neitherinpracticenorin
lawisitnecessaryforthepersonholdingtheinquesttomentionallthese
details.Exh.61iswiththefindingsofobservationofacidburnsoverthedead
bodyofPreeti.
173.
ascertainprimafaciethenatureofdeathandtofindoutwhetherthereare
93
injuriesonthedeadbodyornot.
10.
174.
EffectofAcidonHumanBody:
Sulphuric acid is a Corrosive poison. This chemical is unique
becauseitnotonlycauseschemicalburnsbutalsosecondarythermalburns
asaresultofdehydration.Thisdangerouschemicaliscapableofcorroding
skin,paper,metalandevenstoneinsomecases.Ifcomesdirectcontactwith
theeyes,itcancausepermanentblindness.Itdestroysouterskinandenters
infleshundertheskin.
175.
Incaseofinhalationitcauseslifethreateningaccumulationof
fluid in the lungs i.e., pulmonary edema. Severe short term exposure can
resultintolongtermdamage.Itcontactcancause,painandburnsresulting
intopermanentscarring.Itsingestioncancausedeath.Itmeltsbonesand
maywearawaytoothenamelwhenbreathedin.
11.
176.
EffectofAcidonPreeti:
Thereisoverwhelmingevidenceonrecordtoprovenotonlythe
occurrenceoftheincidence,butalsothenatureoftheoffence.Themedical
evidence is catagorical to that effect that further complications developed
resultedintolossoflife.Theinjurieswerenotonlycausingdeathbutwould
have caused permanent disfigurement despite best medical treatment and
plastic surgeries. The photographs in Exh.154 depicts the effect of acid
94
completelydestroyingeyelids,lips,noseandskin.
177.
Skinisthemostessentialpartofhumanbodygivingshapeto
178.
career.shewasasupportofherparentsintheiroldage.shewasselectedas
NursingLieutenantthroughcompetitiveexams.Itisnotonlythepainand
agonysufferedbyPreetiandlossofalifeofayoungbeautifulgirlhaving
brightfuturebutalsoalossofsupportofherparentsintheiroldage.Death
ofPreetihasnotonlyaffectedherlifebutalsothelifeofherdependentswho
rearedhertoachievecelebratedlife.
179.
Therewasnochancetoplasticsurgeonsincethehospitalization
of Preeti immediately after the incident. She was under the care and
observationsofDr.DhawalGandhiandDr.AshokGupta,theplasticsurgeons.
Theseverityofinjuriescanbeimaginedastheplasticsurgeonscouldnot
workonher.Thethrowofacidwaswithlargequantity,forcefulandfrom
95
shortdistancetoleavenoscopetomakehimunsuccessfulinhisattempt.Still
hervaliantbattlelastedfor30days.
180.
tricklingmarksofacidburnsandoilburns.Shevehementlysubmittedthat
themarksseenonthehandofaccusedareofoilburn.Thetricklingmarks
cannot be seen in case of chemical burn. But no evidence is adduced to
substantiatethesame.Theliteraturepointedoutcannotbeconsideredasthe
finalopinion.TheopiniongivenbyPW23andhisteamstandsprovedandit
isthefinalopinionthatthecorrosivesubstancewasthecauseofburninjuries
ofaccused.
12.
181.
Detectionofacid
CAreportatExh.121i.e.,regardingclothesofPreetiandSunita
Dahiya showed the presence of acid. Exh.120 regarding hair which was
collectedafterthedeathofPreetialsoshowsacid.Art.C,thecontainer,was
withbrownishliquidwhichwasaconcentratedsulphuricacid. Incaseof
State of Maharashtra V/s. Jagdish B. Shah relied upon by the defence
counselis in respectofadangerousdrug. Thepresentcaseisentirelyon
different footing. There are eye witnesses to the incident as well as the
medicalexpertsalsoidentifiedthattheinjurieswereacidburns.Hence,the
observationisnotapplicable.
96
182.
counsel.Howtheyellowishcolouronunaffectedpartofthebodycanberead
toinfernitricacidisnotclarifiedbythedefence.Itisinrespectofyellowness
orpalenessofskinofthedeadbodywhichmaybeduetostarvationand
weaknessofthevictim.Theinjuriesarespecificallydescribedasofsulphuric
acid.ItisconfirmedbytheCAreportofscalphair. However,thesameis
foundinfavourofprosecution.
183.
Inthedefinitionof'corrosivepoison'givenin abookof
184.
Thesameauthor'Lyon'canbereadtoinferpossibilityofnitric
acid.Theauthorhasrecognizedvitriolageandexplainedthatwhenthrown
ontheface,veryextensiveanddisfiguringinjuriesareproducedbytheacid
might result in blindness. On other parts of the body, extensive and very
97
painfulburnsarecaused.Theacidthathasenteredthemouthofthevictim
andbeenswallowedorrespiredmayproducefatalresults.Thesameisthe
caseoftheprosecution.
185.
clothingthefibersofthematerialgetcorrodedastocrumbleawaytopowder
betweenthefingersiftheacidisstrong.
186.
Theacidexertsitsmostimportantactionontissuewithwhichit
comesincontact.Thesymptomsappearimmediatelyoncontactbetweenthe
acidandthetissueinskin.Incaseofconcentratedsulphuricacidwhenit
comesin contact of skin, particularly water in skin, the temperature rises
whichreachesboilingpoint.Thenitcorrodesthetissuescausingburnsand
pain.Theliteratureisfoundinfavourofprosecution.Itisnotthecaseof
nitricacidbutisofsulphuricacidattack.ItcorrodedskinofPreetiaswellas
being ingested damaged her internal organs causing Tracheoesophageal
Fistula.
13.
187.
Medicalnegligence:
Itisveryimportantforthetreatingdoctortoproperlydocument
98
treatmentwascarriedoutproperly.MedicalexaminationpapersfromMasina
Hospital show the efforts taken to treat and save Preeti. Bombay hospital
paperstooindicatethecareandeffortstakenforsurvivalofPreeti.Asacid
hadreachedherlungsandstomachcausingTracheoesophagealFistulaher
condition got deteriorated. No medical negligence is seen on the part of
doctorsinboththehospitals.
14.
188.
Pleaofalibi:
The accused has neither laid evidence nor could prove his
presenceatsomeotherplaceatthetimeoftheincident.Itisobservedbythe
Hon'bleSuprmeCourtincaseofSTATEOFHARYANAVersusSHERSINGH
ANDOTHERS[1981SupremeCourtCases(Cri)421],
''Whenanaccusedpleadsalibi,theburdenisonhimtoproveit
underSection103oftheEvidenceActwhichprovides:
103.Theburdenofproofastoanyparticularfactliesonthat
personwhowishesthecourttobelieveinitsexistence,unlessit
isprovidebyanylawthattheproofofthatfactshalllieonany
particularperson''.
189.
Incaseof BACHITTARSINGHANDANOTHERVersusSTATE
OFPUNJAB[2003SupremeCourtCases(Cri)233],itisobservedthat,
''AccusedBachittarSinghinhisreport,asnoticedabove,had
statedthatonthefatefuldayhewenttoirrigatehisfieldatnight
andcamebackat3.00a.m.whenhereceivedinformationfrom
hiswifethattherewasfiringinthevillagebutheignoredthe
same.HealsostatedthathiscousinPipalSingh,whowas
residinginthesamehaveli,hadcomeat6a.m.andinformed
himthatatabout1a.m.twounidentifiedpersonshadmurdered
thefamiliesofSukhwantSinghandBhupinderSingh.Itis
significantlyenoughtonotethattheaccusedBachittarSingh
neverexaminedanywitnesstoshowthathehadgonetothe
99
fieldtoirrigatehislandandcamebackat3.a.m.Hedidnot
examinehiswife,hismother(accordingtotheprosecutionstory
themotherisstillalive),noranybodytoprovehisalibi''.
Therefore,thislineofdefenceisnotavailabletotheaccused.Per
contraitactsasamissinglinkinthechainofcircumstancesofprosecution's
case.
15.
Unexplainedoldhealedinjuryscarsonthehandsandchest
oftheaccused.:
190.
Itisisacrucialpieceofevidence.Thereare7oldhealedscarson
the hand and chest of the accuse which he could not explained how he
received injuries. As held in case of STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Versus
SURESH[(2000)1SCC471],
''Thesignificantimpactofthesaidincriminatingcircumstanceis
thattheaccusedcouldnotgiveanyexplanationwhatsoeverfor
thoseinjuriesandtherefore,hehadchosentosaythathedidnot
sustainanysuchinjuryatall.Wehavenoreasontodisbelieve
thetestimonyofPW22Dr.NandKumar.Afalseansweroffered
bytheaccusedwhenhisattentionwasdrawntotheaforesaid
circumstancerendersthatcircumstancecapableofinculpating
him.Inasituationlikethissuchafalseanswercanalsobe
countedasprovidingamissinglinkforcompletingthechain''.
PW21examinedtheoldscarsoftheaccusedandinclearterm
100
ofoilburnisfoundfalse.Theinjuriesarecausedduetotheacidburnsduring
theincidentdated02/05/2014.
16.
191.
Statementu/s.313ofCr.P.C.:
Hon'ble Supreme Court in SWAPAN PATRA AND OTHERS
KERALA[AIR(2000)Supremecourt1608],itisheldthat,
''Duringthetimeofquestioningundersection313,Cr.P.C.,the
appellantinsteadofmakingatleastanattempttoexplainor
clarifytheincriminatingcircumstancesinculpatinghim,and
connectinghimwiththecrimebyhisadamantattitudeoftotal
denialofeverythingwhenthosecircumstanceswerebroughtto
hisnoticebytheCourtnotonlylosttheopportunitybutstood
selfcondemned.Suchincriminatinglinksoffactscould,ifatall,
havebeenonlyexplainedbytheappellant,andnobodyelsethey
beingpersonallyandexclusivelywithinhisknowledge.Oflate,
courtshave,fromthefalsityofthedefencepleaandfalse
answersgiventocourt,whenquestioned,foundthemissinglinks
tobesuppliedbysuchanswersforcompletingthechainof
incriminatingcircumstancesnecessarytoconnecttheperson
concernedwiththecrimecommitted''.
193.
ItisobservedbyHon'bleSupremeCourtin STATEOFPUNJAB
VersusKARNAILSINGH[(2003)11SupremeCourtCases271]that,
''thoughtheprosecutionhastoleadevidencetosubstantiateits
accusations,iffactswithinthespecialknowledgeoftheaccused
101
arenotsatisfactorilyexplaineditisafactoragainsttheaccused.
Noexplanationwasgivenbytheaccusedduringexamination
undersection313oftheCodeexceptmakingbolddenial.
Thoughthisfactorbyitselfcannotbesufficienttofastentheguilt
oftheaccused,whileconsideringthetotalityofthe
circumstancesthisiscertainlyarelevantfactor''.
194.
Appreciatingthestatementundersection313ofCr.P.C.itisheld
Inviewoftheabovesaidsettledprincipleoflawtheexplanation
occurredbytheaccusedbymakingcleardenialtoeveryquestionitbecomes
arelevantfactortoconnecttheaccusedwiththecrime.Thus,theexplanation
offeredbytheaccusedthatsuchburnmarksarepossibleduetooilburns
doesn'tfallinhisfavourbutcompelsthecourttoconsideritafalsehood,
forming a missing link. The bold denial and failure to explain the
incriminatingcircumstancesinculpatinghimgoagainsthim.
EVALUATIONOFEVIDENCEINLEGALFRAME:
1.
196.
Whetherdeathishomicidal:
The inquest panchanama at Exh.61, admitted by the defence,
102
shows burn injuries at various parts of the body including complete face
affectingoralcavity.,PW23Dr.ShrikantPaifromGurunanakHospitalnoted
theinjuriesandrecordedthehistorygivenbyrelativeinExh.110.Though
some coloumns are not filled in Exh.110 that doesn't affect the veracity
regardingtheconditionofthevictimatthattimenoticedbyhim.Ashewas
notabletomanagethepatientduetolackoffacilitiesshewasreferredto
MasinaHospital.WithinonehourshereachedMasinaHospital.
197.
PW22 Dr. Aniket Pote was at Masina Hospital who took the
historyfromPW11.Hefirstlygavetreatmentandthereafterthepaperswere
prepared.
198.
ANDOTHERS[2002SupremeCourtCases(Cri)961],ascitedbyLd.SPP
ithasbeenmadeclearthatitisnotthedutyofthedoctornorthelawexpects
fromthedoctortomentionthenamesoftherelatives.Itisheldthat,
''Itisneithertherequirementoflawnorusuallyexpectedthat
namesofalltherelativesoftheinjuredshouldbementionedin
themedicolegalreportpreparedbytheDoctorinhisdiscretion.
Thementionoftheinjuredhavingbeenbeatenbysomebodyin
thedoctor'sintimationtothepolicestationhasbeenusedtohold
thatinfactbythattimethewitnessdidnotknowthenameof
anyoftheassailantsandthatthecasewasablindmurdercase.
TheintimationgivenbytheDoctorwasregardingtheadmission
ofthepatientinunconsciouspositionrequestingthepoliceto
takenecessaryaction.Mentioningofthenamesorholdingthe
inquiryregardingtheoccurrencewasneitherthedutyofthe
doctornorusuallyexpectedfromhim''.
103
199.
Dr.DhavalGandhiPW27treatedPreetitill18/05/2013.Preeti
hadlostvisionandwasunabletospeakandbreath.Therewasnonegligence
onthepartofthedoctor.InBombayHospitalDr.AnitaHiremathandateam
headedbyDr.GuptatreatedPreetitill01/06/2013.Dr.AshokGuptaPW28
couldnotbedeviatedfromhistestimonythattheyallweretreatingPreetitill
herdeathbyallmeasures.Exh.154gavedetailsofmeasurestakentotreat
Preeti.
200.
MemorandumofpostmortemreportpreparedbyDr.Chikhalkar
clarifiesthecauseofdeathasduetocorrosivepoisonsupportedbyCAreport
inExh.121.Thequantityofacidwashugei.e.,2kg.carryingsuchahuge
quantitycanbeinferredonlywiththepremediatedplan.
201.
expertsthedeathwascausedduetocorrosivepoison,sulphuricacid.PW6,
PW7,PW9andPW11sawtheperpetratorthrowingacidonPreeti.Defence
has not brought any circumstance showing accidental or suicidal burns of
acid.Thechallengewasmadeinrespectofsulphuricacidclaimingasnitric
acid.Butacidisadmitted.Noothercausethanthedeathoutofflingingacid
canbeinferredinthecircumstances.
202.
Therefore,thedeathofPreetiwasfoundcausedbyacidthrown
104
onher.Itwasnotanaccidentbutapremeditateddeliberateattempt,itisa
culpablehomicideamountingtomurder.Hence,pointno.1isansweredinthe
affirmative.
2.
grievoushurttoinjuredpersonsincludingAmarsinghRathiandSameer
Shaikh,intentionallybythrowingacid:
203.
TheeyewitnessesPW6,PW7,PW9andPW11havegiventhe
204.
PW14isbroughtonrecord.Itissubmittedbythedefencethatitisamaterial
105
ThechallengethatPawanwastheoriginalaccusedisnotproved
byanymeansnotanydoubtiscreatedinthetestimonyofeyewitnesses.
206.
PW6wasalsoinjuredintheincident.Heshowedthespotofthe
incidentandalsoshoutedaftertheacidspiltonhimaskingPW7tochaseand
catchtheculprit.ItisanimmediatereactionofPW6.WhenPW7chasedthe
accused it was the natural conduct of the accused who turned back on
hearingshoutstocatchhimandtoseewhoisfollowinghim.Asthescarfhad
slideddownPW6,PW7,PW9andPW11gotopportunitytoseehisface.
207.
PW6,PW7andPW9toseehimtillhisarrestorbeforetestidentification
parade. PW11 also did not visit the house of PW14 after the funeral of
Preeti.Nopossibilitiesisbroughttoraisedoubtthattherewasanopportunity
106
to these witnesses to see the accused before his arrest or before test
identificationparade.PW14hadseentheaccusedonlyfrombacksideand
describedhimapersonwiththinbuilt.Therefore,thoughhewasresidingin
BBMBColonyitwasnotpossibleforhimtoidentifyhim.
208.
14/04/2013whichwasbeforetheincident.Thisfactwasdiscoveredunder
section27ofIndianEvidenceAct.
209.
PW13wastoldbyPreetibefore15to20dayoftheincidentthat
accusedproposedherbutshedefiedhisproposalofmarriage.Shetalkedto
theaccusedaskinghimtomindhisownbusiness.PreetileftforMumbaion
01.05.2013. It shows that after Preeti defied the proposal of accused he
preparedaplanandpouredacid.
210.
TheprosecutionhasbroughtunilateralloveofaccusedforPreeti
asmotiveofthecrime.Victimhadhurttheegooftheaccusedwhichcaused
himtoprepareaplantodisfigureherfacesoasnottoleaveherwithher
beauty.TheaccusedusedacidasaweaponagainstPreetiwhorefusedhis
marriage proposal. It is an extreme form of man's reaction as Preeti
transgressed traditional gender norms. She was going to become a bread
winner.Shehadhurtanextremepatriarchalattitudewhichregardsawoman
107
aspropertycompletelydenyingherautonomy.TheattemptbyPreetitoassert
herwillwithoutpayingheedtotheaccusedmadetheaccusedtoplantotake
revenge.
211.
ThoughtheinformationgivenbyPreetitoPW13wasbefore15
to20daysoftheincident,whenPreetiisnotalivethatwillbeherstatement
under section 32 of Indian Evidence Act. No one can read the mind of a
personwhohascloseditbutthecircumstancescanleadtodrawinference.It
issufficienttoinferthemotiveoftheaccused.Throwingacidonherfacewas
gruesomacttodisfigureherfaceleavingherdeadinthesocietyevenifshe
wouldhavesurvived.''
212.
ItistheacidwhichcausedthedeathofPreeti.Art.Crecovered
fromthespotwasusedbytheaccusedtotakeconcentratedsulphuricacid
fromPW16lyingthathehasabusinessinthenameof'AnkurBatteries'.
213.
Themedicalevidenceofaccusedisofvitalimportance.Hecould
not explain the injuries on his right forearm flexor aspect. Evaluating the
injuriesonforearmthoseareclearlyfoundduetothesecondarydropsfallen
whenheflungacidonPreeti.Inhisstatementundersection313ofCr.P.C.
Whileansweringthequestionno.279and280heshowedignoranceabout
hisinjuries.Percontrawhileansweringquestionno.281heexplainedthat
108
suchtypesofmarkscanbecausedduetooilburn.Hestatedthathewas
working in a hotel Crown Plaza at New Delhi for six months before the
incident but did not state that when and how the injuries were caused.
Therefore,theexplanationisnotconvincingandsatisfactory.Inthewritten
statementalsohecouldnotbringanythingtoshowhowtheinjurieswere
causedbyanyothermeans.Thedefencestoryisalsonotputtothewitnesses
whogaveevidencethattheinjurieswerecausedbyacidburns.
214.
AccusedwasseeninthetraininwhichPreetitravelled.PW11
hadoccasiontoseehimtwice.Onceinthetrainandthereafteratthetimeof
theincident.
215.
Thetestidentificationparadeheldon12/02/2014byPW19is
not found doubtful. All the eye witnesses have identified the accused.
EvidenceofPW11andPW14iscorroboratedbyalltheeyewitnesses.There
was nodelayin holding testidentification parade.Prosecution has given
explanation as to how the investigation progressed and how the date of
identificationparadewasfixed.Therefore,thereisnodoubtinthemannerin
whichthetestidentificationparadewasheld.
216.
Theevidencerelatingtothetestidentificationparadebelongsto
thestageofinvestigationbypolicemainlyforthepurposeofgivingassurance
109
thatinvestigationisgoingonpropertrack.Thesubstantiveevidenceofthe
involvementoftheaccusedinthecaseistheiridentificationinthecourtroom
bythewitnessesduringtrial.Therefore,whileassessingtheevidenceofthe
test identification parade the court has to see whether there were sincere
efforts on the part of the magistrate to make sure that the ability of the
witnessestoidentifythesuspectisbeingtestedinfairandunbiasedmanner.
It has to be seen whether it caused any prejudice to the accused. Minor
deviation from the procedure lead down may not affect nor wipe out its
evidentiary value as held in case of STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Versus
SURESHcitedsupra.
217.
Theredoesnotappeartobeanysuchunfairaidorassistance
218.
Othercircumstancesinrespectofseizureofarticles fromspot
110
andclothesofPreetiandSunitaDahiyacouldnotbemadedoubtful.There
weremanyofficersintheinvestigatingteamactingonthedirectionofACP
Bhosale.Haditbeenofthesameinvestigatingofficerthetheoryofconcoction
ofstorycouldhavebeenimagined.Severalpoliceofficersinvestigatingthe
casecollectedvariousdifferentlinkswhicharefoundconnectingwitheach
otherformingacompletechain.
219.
Thusthefactsemergedfromtheevidenceledbeforethecourt
canbeculledoutasunder:
1.
PreetihaddisclosedtoPW13thataccusedhadaskedfor
marriage and she defied his proposal.He also askedher not tomove to
Mumbaibysayingthatelsethatwillnotbegood.
2.
14/04/2013inArt.C.
3.
On01.05.2013accusedtravelledbythetrainGaribrathin
whichPreeticametoMumbai.
4.
PW11sawtheaccusedinthetrainneartoiletholdinga
redbag.Healsotalkedtohim.
5.
fromthetrainaccusedcamefromthebacksideandtappedherbecauseof
whichsheturnedback.
6.
PW6hadseenaccusedholdingArt.Candflingingacidon
111
thefaceofPreeti.Somedropssplatteredonhimtherefore,heshouted.Preeti
alsoscreamed.
7.
couldnotchasehim.Hearingtheshoutsaccusedturnedback,hisscarfhad
slithereddownandcaphadfallen.Therefore,PW6,PW7,PW9andPW11
sawhisfacebuthecouldescape.
8.
PW14heardthescreamsofPreetiandsawather.Healso
sawtheaccusedrunningaway,butcouldnotseehisface.
9.
PW11andPW14liftedPreetiandbroughttothestation
mastersofficefromwhereshewastakentoGurunanakHospital.Thereafter
shewastakentoMasinaHospital.
10.
Hospital for the injuries caused to them due to spilt of acid.They were
examinedandfoundwithacidburninjuries.
11.
AftercomingfromBhabaHospitalPW14lodgedFIR
12.
UponknowingabouttheincidentPW17informedittoPI
Dhopavkarwhodirectedtosecurethespottoconductspotpanchanama,spot
panchanama was conducted and articles from spot were seized including
Art.Candclothepieces.
13.
14.
ArticleseizedfromspotandclothesofPreetiandSunita
wereseized.
112
weredetectedwithsulphuricacid.
15.
SevereburnswerecausedtoPreetibecauseofwhichshe
wasunabletospeakandtherefore,couldnotgivestatement.Shehadnot
seenthefaceofthemiscreant.
16.
TheconditionofPreetiwasdeterioratedduetothesevere
acid burns, which affected her mouth, palate, oral cavity, oesophagus,
bronchusandlungs.
17.
On18/05/2013PreetiwasshiftedtoBombayhospital.She
wasundercareandtreatmentofteamofexperts.InspiteofalleffortsPreeti
succumbedtotheinjuriescausedduetoacidburns.
18.
nameofaccusedcropedupininvestigation.
19.
AccusedwasbroughttoMumbaiandwasarrested.Hewas
foundwitholdhealedscarsofacidburns,6to12monthsold,onhisright
forearmflexoraspect.
20.
Onhisconfessionalstatementthefactofobtainingsample
ofacidfromPW16wasdiscovered.
21.
PW16identifiedtheaccusedandArt.Cinwhichaccused
hadtakenacidsamplefromhimon14/04/2013.
22.
Accusedcouldnotgiveexplanationtotheinjuriesonhis
handabovewristjoint.
23.
Theanswersgiveninrespectofinjuriesinthestatement
113
undersection313ofCr.P.C.arefalse.
24.
ByflingingacidonPreetiaccusedcausedherdeathand
alsoinjuredPW6andPW14.
220.
Lookingattheabovefactsitwasapreplannedmurderbythe
221.
Theverypurposeofamendmentofsection326ofI.P.c.istodeter
theaccusedfromcausingacidburnsoracidattacks.Asthepreviouslawwas
not recognizing acid attack having horrondeous effect on the victim it is
amendedwithstringentpunishment.InJuly,2013Hon'bleSupremeCourtin
thepetitionofacidattackssurvivorissuedguidelinesforthesellandpurchase
oftoxicliquid,theacid.Consideringtheeffectoftheacidonvictimphysically
andpsychologically,theschemeofcompensationisalsoframed.
222.
consequencesforthewholelife.Duetotheirhorrificphysicalappearances,.
thesocietyalsolooksatthemasanalien.Theyfeelworthlessandembarassed
andtheirremaininglifeisruinedaftertheincident.Thesocialandeconomic
consequencesarealsodiscriminatingmakingthemtolivewithdisabilitylike
114
blindness.
223.
Section326Aisenactedforgrievoushurtcausedresultinginto
permanentdisfigurementanddisabilitybyacidattackwhichispunishablefor
notlessthan10yearsimprisonmentextendingtolifeandfine.
224.
Theoffenceundersection326AcannotbeconsideredforPreeti
asoutoftheacidattackbetweenshediedwhichisalreadydiscussed.No
offencecanbedecidedundersection326AofIPCasitwillamounttodouble
jeopardy.Theinjuredthoughreceivedacidburninjuries,thereisnoevidence
that those are grievous hurt causing disfigurement. Those are simply hurt
causedbytheacid.
225.
ThepresumptionisincorporatedinIndianEvidenceactassection114B.The
actoftheaccusedcannotbeconsideredasonlywiththeintentiontocause
hurtorgrevioushurttoPreeti.Itwasdoneinthecrowdedarea.Itwasa
liquidwhichwasusedbytheaccusedasaweapon.Therefore,thesplashand
spiltonthepersonsaroundwasobvious.TheinjuriescausedtoPW6and
PW14areoutofthesameacid.TheyweretakentohospitalExh.134,135
and 136 speaks in volume. PW18 had carried them to Bhaba Hospital.
Therefore, it cannot be considered as the act of negligence. The injuries
115
causedtoPW6andPW14arenotprovedasgrevioushurt.Thoseareonly
acid burns without causing any disfigurement or disability. Intentionally
throwingacidonPreetiwhichcausedhurttoPW6andPW14squarelyfalls
undersection326BofIndianPenalCode,1860.Thus,pointno.3and4are
answeredaccordingly.
226.
section302and326BofI.P.C.Here,Istopthejudgmenttoheartheaccused
onthequestionofsentence.ItisexplainedtotheaccusedinHindi.
Date:06.09.2016
227.
(A.S.SHENDE)
Addl.SessionsJudge,
CityCivil&SessionsCourt,
Gr.Mumbai.
116
Resumedon07/09/2016
SUBMISSIONONSENTENCE:
228.
Thejudgmentwasstoppedtoheartheaccusedonthequestion
ofsentence.Accusedwasaskedwhetherhewantstomakeanysubmissions
onthepointofsentence.Hesaid'No'.Defencecounselinformedthatshewill
makesubmissionsfortheaccused.Accusedconceded.
229.
counselandSpecialPublicProsecutor.
SubmissionofSpecialpublicProsecutor:
230.
TheLd.SpecialPublicProsecutoradvancedsubmissionsstressing
thedemandformaximumpenaltyofdeathonthegroundthatthefactsand
circumstancesandthemodeandmannerofthecrimewarrantsonlydeath
penalty.Hehasalsopointedouttheprovisionsofsection354(3)ofCr.P.C.
introduced by way of amendment for the first time in the year 1973
regarding the introduction of provision enjoining upon the court to give
specialreasonsforawardingdeathpenalty.Hedrewtheattentionofthecourt
towardsthelandmarkdecisionoftheapexcourtincaseofBachansinghV/s.
117
The Ld. Special Public Prosecutor took the court through the
Proximityoftheconductoftheaccusedandtheincident.Itis
pointingoutthatinMarch,2013,PreetiwasselectedinIndianArmy
andtheincidenttookplaceon02/05/2013.
2.
ground.
3.
Priorto15daysofthetimewhenPreetileftforDelhi,heissued
cautionwarningnottogotoMumbaielseconsequenceswillbebadto
whichshedidnotpayheed.
4.
On01/05/2013Preetiboardedtrainwithdreamsinhereyes.
5.
At8.15a.m.,atplatformno.3,theaccusedwhowasallthewhile
118
chasingherhurledacidonPreeti.
6.
On01/06/2013Preetibreathedherlast.Hervaliantbattlelasted
for30daysinwhichsheunderwentunbearable,intolerablepainoutof
barbaricact.
7.
Preeti'svisionwaslost,facedisfigured,vocalchord,lungs,food
pipeandwindpipeweredamagedinjured.
232.
butchery.Hegaveexampleofabutcherwhocutsagoat.Whenbutchercuts
agoat,thegoatishelplessandcannotcryorshout.Thenaturehasblessed
the goat with the absence of reason. The goat is fortunate that it doenst
understand what the butcher and customer talk about it and remains
happy. However, here Preeti was not even that fortunate. She was not
knowing forwhatshewasattacked.Shewas sufferingfrom mental
painandagonybutwasunabletoexpressedandexplain.Thiswashundred
percenthelplessness.Hefurthersubmittedthatheronlyfaultwasthatshe
rejected the proposal of the accused and she was attacked because his
attitudewasthateithersheshouldlovehimorquittheworld.Thiswashis
massage.Preetiwasforcedtogothroughphysicaland mental pain.The
entire society atlarge wasshocked.Outofunilateralloveandrejection
fromPreetitheaccusedbecamefurious.Heprocuredacidandwaitedtill
BandrawhereheattackedPreetiashewantedhernottogotoMumbai.
AllthewhilehecarriedsulphuricacidtillMumbai.Heisaheartless
119
person who did not even think about the life of Preeti who for no fault
becamethevictim.Sherejectedtheproposaloutofhisunilaterallove.He
consideredherashisproperty.Thepsychiatristscallsuchpersonsas'sadist'.
AccusedconsideredthatashehadchosenPreetishewashisasset.
233.
TheLd.SpecialPublicProsecutoralsoadvancedsubmissionsthat
theaccusedisa'sadist'.Heenjoysatypicalperversepleasurebytorturingthe
victim.Hegotpleasureinpainandagonyofvictim.Hismovingoutinthe
societymayresultdangeroustomanygirlswhocannotsavethemselvesfrom
such'sadists'.Thisperversitymustbecrushedwithironhands.
234.
cruelareputforthasunder:
1.
Preetiwasadefencelessyounggirl.
2.
TherewasnoprovocationorintimidationonthepartofPreeti.
3.
AccuseddecidedtoeliminatePreetiinthemostghastlymanner.
Hence,heismenacetothesociety.
4.
ItwasapreplannedmurderashewantedPreetiforhimandshe
refusedtorespondinhisway.
235.
requirednamely:
120
1.
Extremementaloremotionaldisturbance.
2.
Youngage.
3.
Theprobabilitythattheaccusedwouldnotcommitcriminalact
ofviolenceconstitutingcontinuousthreattosociety.
4.
Theprobabilitythattheaccusedcanbereformed andcanbe
rehabilitated.
5.
Ifaccusedismorallyjustifiedincommittingtheoffence.
6.
Accusedactedundertheduressordominationofanotherperson.
7.
236.
mitigatingcircumstancesaslaiddownincaseofBachhanSinghandthereis
noneedtoconsiderthesame.
237.
AccordingtotheLd.SpecialPublicProsecutor,deservingpersons
aretobecondonedandundeservingarerequiredtobecondemned,whichis
fundamental policy of law. Relying on Salmond's Law of jurisprudence he
submitted that no wrong can go unrepented and no offence should go
unpunished.HerelieduponthejudgmentsincaseofStateofU.P.V/s.Shri
Kishan[2005SCC(Cri.)1568],pointingoutparano.7whichreadsas,
121
''theobjectshouldbetoprotectthesocietyandtodeterthe
criminalinachievingtheavowedobjectoflawbyimposing
appropriatesentence.Itisexpectedthatthecourtswould
operatethesentenceinsystemsoastoimposesuchsentence
whichreflectstheconscienceofthesocietyandthesentencing
processhastobesternedwhereitshouldbe''.Further,itisheld
inpara8,''impositionofsentencewithoutconsideringitseffect
onthesocialorderinmanycasesmayinrealitybeafutile
exercise.Thesocialimpactofthecrimee.g.,whereitrelatesto
offencesagainstwomen,dacoity,kidnapping,misappropriation
ofpublicmoney,treasonandotheroffencesinvolvingmoral
turpitudeormoraldelinquencywhichhavegreatimpacton
socialorderandpublicinterest,cannotbelostsightofandper
sayrequireexemplarytreatment.Anyliberalattitudeby
imposingmeagersentencesortakingtoosympatheticview
merelyonaccountoflapsoftimeinrespectofsuchoffenceswill
beresultwisecounterproductiveinthelongrunandagainst
societalinterestwhichneedstobecaredforstrengthenedby
stringofdeterrenceinbuiltinthesentencingsystem''.
238.
Healsodrewtheattentionofthecourttowardstheobjectand
239.
Hesubmittedthatastheactoftheaccusedisgruesomeandit'sa
preplannedmurderofayoung,innocent,helplessgirlwithnofault,itisa
rarestofrarecase.Thus,theaccuseddeservesnothingbutthedeathpenalty
undersection302ofI.P.C..Furtherbyhisintentionalactheinjuredfatherof
Preetiandotherpersonsbythrowingacid.Therefore,hedeservesmaximum
122
penaltyundersection326BofI.P.C.
Submissionofdefencecounsel:
240.
ReplyingtothesubmissionsoftheLd.SpecialPublicProsecutor,
thedefencecounselpercontrasubmittedthattheaccusedhasnotcommitted
theoffence.Thefactsarenotproved.Thesignificantdocumentsarenotfiled
onrecordandthattheaccusedwasnotgivenanopportunitytodefendhis
case.Hewasrepresentedbylegalaidadvocate,whowasimposedonhim.
241.
advancedonthequestionofsentenceasonmerits,shewasheardatlength
andthecourthasalreadyfoundaccusedguiltyoftheoffence.Shecontinued
thesamesubmissions.Therefore,toremovethesenseofinjusticefromthe
mindofaccuseditisfoundnecessarytomentionthataccusedwaspreviously
representedbyaneminentlawyerworkingoncriminalside.Thecourtcannot
beobliviousofthefactthatthesaiddefencelawyerhadsoughtproductionof
documents i.e., the papers on which Preeti had scribbled in hospital and
C.C.T.V.footage.Thesamewassuppliedtothedefence.Thecourthasgiven
opportunitytodefencelawyertotakeinstructionsfromtheaccusedbefore
examination of witness starts. The accused was specially directed to be
producedtomeethisadvocate.PW1wascrossexaminedbyhim.Thereafter,
hewithdrewhisvakalatnama.Afterthesaidlawyerwithdrewhisappearance,
123
theaccusedwasinformed.Hedidnotengagedefencelawyerthereforelegal
aidwasprovidedtohim.Thecourttookcaretorecordthedepositiononlyin
thepresenceoftheaccused.Onhisrequesttheaccusedwasprovidedwith
onemorecopyofchargesheet.Ontherequestoftheaccusedandconsidering
the nature of charges, one senior lawyer advocate Shri Prakash Ware,
workingoncriminalside,wasappointedthroughlegalaid,withhisconsent.
ThecourtisthankfulforthecontributionofadvocateVarewhoattendedthe
matterpunctuallyandsincerelyandseriouslyconductedthetrial.
242.
Aftertenwitnesseswereexaminedandexaminationinchiefof
PW11wasovertheaccusedengagedthepresentdefenceadvocate.Ather
request the examination of witness was deferred and thereafter for the
completetrial,tilldatethepresentadvocaterepresentedtheaccused.Inspite
ofgivinglibertytorecallthewitnesses,examinedearliernosuchprayerwas
made.Theobjectionregardinglegalaidadvocateisraisedonlyatthetimeof
hearing on the question of sentence. Therefore, the court is compelled to
observethateachandeveryopportunitywasofferedtotheaccusedhebeing
undertrialprisoner.Hence,thesubmissionsbythedefencecounselinthis
regardarenottenable.
243.
'helpless woman' to consider the same as the rarest of rare case, is not
124
applicable as Preeti was not left to die by restraining her to move. The
accused is not menace to society and he is a young boy. There are no
aggravatingcircumstances.Hence,thelifeimprisonmentisthepunishment
availablefortheoffenceundersection302ofI.P.C.
244.
Further,boththepartieswentthroughthejudgmentofMadras
HighCourtincaseof,''Vinodhini'', CriminalAppealnumber361of2014,
Sureshkumar@AppuV/s.TheStaterepresentedbyInspectorofPolice,
Karaikal. The defence counsel submitted that the court has not awarded
deathpenaltyinspiteofflingingacidbytheaccusedon'Vinodhini'causing
herdeath.Hence,itisnotapplicable.
245.
'Vinodhini',thoughtheFIRwasregisteredbeforetheamendmentofsection
326ofI.P.C.TheHon'bleMadrasHighCourtseriouslyviewedthepointof
failuretoappreciatethecaseundertheperspectiveof'rarestofrare'case.
Thereisaclearmandatethatthesessionscourtshouldhavetreateditas
rarestofrarecase.Parano.33ofthesamejudgmentisreproducedhereas
pointedout,Howeveritwasanappealpreferredbytheaccusedtherefore,
court was left without option than to maintain the punishment of life
imprisonment.
125
246.
Sentence:Beforebeginningwiththediscussionitisimportantto
247.
processitisadifficultstageasinIndianLegalsystem,asobservedbythe
Apexcourtinthecaseof ShimbhuandAnr.v/s.StateofHaryana[2013
ALLMR(Cri.)3306(S.C.)]confersamplediscretiononthejudgestolevy
theappropriatesentence.Variousfactorslikethenature,gravity,themanner
and the circumstances of the commission of the offence, character of the
accused, aggravating as well as mitigating circumstances etc. cumulatively
constitutetheyardsticktodecidethesentence.
248.
Especiallywhenthecourtisconsideringthequestionofsentence
astowhetheritshouldbetheminimumwhichislifeimprisonmentorthe
maximumwhichisdeathpenaltyasdemandedbySpecialP.P.,thentheduty
of the court becomes more onerous, in view of the law of land that life
imprisonmentistheruleanddeathpenaltyisanexception,tobeawarded
onlyrarestofrarecases.Therefore,thiscourthastoensurethatthiscasefalls
126
intheexceptionalcategoryoftherarestofrarecase.
249.
Beforediscussingaggravatingfactsandmitigatingcircumstances
andreachingtoanyconclusion,itisnecessarytogothroughtheviewsofthe
Hon'ble Supreme Court on 'rarest of rare' as well the guidelines and the
principlelaiddowntherein.
250.
127
shallnotbesentencedtodeath.
(3)Theprobabilitythattheaccusedwouldnotcommitcriminal
acts of violence as would constitute a continuing threat to
society.
(4) The probability that the accused can be reformed and
rehabilitated.TheStateshallbyevidenceprovethattheaccused
doesnotsatisfytheconditions3and4above.
(5)Thatinthefactsandcircumstancesofthecasetheaccused
believedthathewasmorallyjustifiedincommittingtheoffence.
(6)Thattheaccusedactedundertheduressordominationof
anotherperson.
(7) That the condition of the accused showed that he was
mentallydefectiveandthatthesaiddefectunpairedhiscapacity
toappreciatethecriminalityofhisconduct.
251.
Inthematterof MachhiSinghv.StateofPunjab,[(1983)3
SCC470],theHon'bleSupremeCourtfurtherelaboratedtheprincipalofthe
rarestofrarecase.
32.Thereasonswhythecommunityasawholedoesnotendorse
thehumanisticapproachreflectedindeathsentenceinnocase
doctrine are not far to seek. In the first place, the very
humanisticedificeisconstructedonthefoundationofreverence
forlifeprinciple.Whenamemberofthecommunityviolatesthis
veryprinciplebykillinganother member,thesocietymaynot
128
feelitselfboundbytheshacklesofthisdoctrine.Secondly,ithas
toberealizedthateverymemberofthecommunityisabletolive
with safety without his or her own life being endangered
becauseoftheprotectivearmofhecommunityandonaccount
oftheruleoflawenforcedbyit.Theveryexistenceoftheruleof
law and the fear of being brought to book operates as a
deterrentforthosewhohavenoscruplesinkillingothersif it
suitstheirends.Everymemberofthecommunityowesadebtto
thecommunityforthisprotection.Wheningratitudeisshown
insteadofgratitudebykillingamemberofthecommunitywhich
protects the murderer himself from being killed, or when the
communityfeelsthatforthesakeofselfpreservation thekiller
has to be killed, the community may well withdraw the
protectionbysanctioningthedeathpenalty.Butthecommunity
willnotdosoineverycase.Itmaydosoinrarestofrarecases
whenitscollectiveconscienceisso shockedthatitwillexpect
theholdersofthejudicialpower centretoinflictdeathpenalty
irrespectiveoftheirpersonal opinionasregardsdesirabilityor
otherwise of retaining death penalty. The community may
entertainsucha sentimentwhenthecrimeisviewedfromthe
platformofthemotivefor,orthemannerofcommissionofthe
crime,ortheantisocialorabhorrentnatureofthecrime,suchas
forinstance:
I.Mannerofcommissionofmurder
33. When the murder is committed in an extremely brutal,
grotesque, diabolical, revolting or dastardly manner so as to
arouseintenseandextremeindignationofthe community.For
instance,
(i)whenthehouseofthevictimissetaflamewiththeend in
viewtoroasthimaliveinthehouse.
(ii)whenthevictimissubjectedtoinhumanactsof tortureor
crueltyinordertobringabouthisorherdeath.
(iii)..........................................
In Machhi Singh (supra), the following five tests were
laid down as parameters for the assistance of the Courts in
129
II.Motiveforcommissionofmurder.
III.Antisocialorsociallyabhorrentnatureofthecrime.
IV.Magnitudeofcrime.
V.Personalityofvictimofmurder.
252.
SufficeittonotethatallthefiveindicatorslaiddowninMachhi
253.
InDhananjoyChatterjeeV/s.StateofWestBengal[(1994)2
SCC220)]theHon'bleSupremeCourtobservedthat
15.Inouropinion,themeasureofpunishmentinagivencase
mustdependupontheatrocityofthecrime;theconductofthe
criminalandthedefencelessandunprotectedstateofthevictim.
Imposition of appropriate punishmentis the manner in which
the courts respond to the society's cry for justice against the
criminals. Justice demands that courts should impose
punishmentbefittingthecrimesothatthecourtsreflectpublic
abhorrenceofthecrime.Thecourtsmustnotonlykeepinview
the rights of the criminal but also the rights of the victim of
crimeandthesocietyatlargewhileconsideringimpositionof
appropriatepunishment.
254.
In StateofMadhyaPradeshvs.MunnaChoubey,[(2005)2
130
SCC710]itisobservedthat,
''11.Thecriminallawadheresingeneraltotheprincipleof
proportionalityinprescribingliabilityaccordingtotheculpability
ofeachkindofcriminalconduct.Itordinarilyallowssome
significantdiscretiontotheJudgeinarrivingatasentencein
eachcase,presumablytopermitsentencesthatreflectmore
subtleconsiderationsofculpabilitythatareraisedbythespecial
factsofeachcase.Judgesinessenceaffirmthatpunishment
oughtalwaystofitthecrime;yetinpracticesentencesare
determinedlargelybyotherconsiderations.Sometimesitisthe
correctionalneedsoftheperpetratorthatareofferedtojustifya
sentence.Sometimesthedesirabilityofkeepinghimoutof
circulation,andsometimeseventhetragicresultsofhiscrime.
Inevitablytheseconsiderationscauseadeparturefromjust
desertsasthebasisofpunishmentandcreatecasesofapparent
injusticethatareseriousandwidespread.
Proportionbetweencrimeandpunishmentisagoal
respectedinprinciple,andinspiteoferrantnotions,itremainsa
stronginfluenceinthedeterminationofsentences.Thepractice
ofpunishingallseriouscrimeswithequalseverityisnow
unknownincivilisedsocieties,butsucharadicaldeparturefrom
theprincipleofproportionalityhasdisappearedfromthelaw
onlyinrecenttimes.Evennowforasinglegraveinfraction
drasticsentencesareimposed.Anythinglessthanapenaltyof
greatestseverityforanyseriouscrimeisthoughtthentobea
measureoftolerationthatisunwarrantedandunwise.Butin
fact,quiteapartfromthoseconsiderationsthatmakepunishment
unjustifiablewhenitisoutofproportiontothecrime,uniformly
disproportionatepunishmenthassomeveryundesirablepractical
consequences.
Aftergivingdueconsiderationtothefactsand
circumstancesofeachcase,fordecidingjustandappropriate
sentencetobeawardedforanoffence,theaggravatingand
mitigatingfactorsandcircumstancesinwhichacrimehasbeen
committedaretobedelicatelybalancedonthebasisofreally
relevantcircumstancesinadispassionatemannerbythecourt.
Suchactofbalancingisindeedadifficulttask.Ithasbeenvery
aptlyindicatedinMcGauthav.StateofCaliforniathatno
formulaofafoolproofnatureispossiblethatwouldprovidea
reasonablecriterionindeterminingajustandappropriate
punishmentintheinfinitevarietyofcircumstancesthatmay
affectthegravityofthecrime.Intheabsenceofanyfoolproof
formulawhichmayprovideanybasisforreasonablecriteriato
131
correctlyassessvariouscircumstancesgermanetothe
considerationofgravityofcrime,thediscretionaryjudgmentin
thefactsofeachcase,istheonlywayinwhichsuchjudgment
maybeequitablydistinguished''.
255.
In JashubhaBharatsinhGohilv.StateofGujarat[(1994)4
SCC353]ithasbeenheldbythisCourtthat,
''inthematterofdeathsentence,thecourtsarerequiredto
answernewchallengesandmouldthesentencingsystemtomeet
thesechallenges.Theobjectshouldbetoprotectthesocietyand
todeterthecriminalinachievingtheavowedobjectoflawby
imposingappropriatesentence.Itisexpectedthatthecourts
wouldoperatethesentencingsystemsoastoimposesuch
sentencewhichreflectstheconscienceofthesocietyandthe
sentencingprocesshastobesternwhereitshouldbe.Even
thoughtheprincipleswereindicatedinthebackgroundofdeath
sentenceandlifesentence,thelogicappliestoallcaseswhere
appropriatesentenceistheissue.
Impositionofsentencewithoutconsideringitseffectonthe
socialorderinmanycasesmaybeinrealityafutileexercise.The
socialimpactofthecrimee.g.whereitrelatestooffencesagainst
women,dacoity,kidnapping,misappropriationofpublicmoney,
treasonandotheroffencesinvolvingmoralturpitudeormoral
delinquencywhichhavegreatimpactonsocialorderandpublic
interest,cannotbelostsightofandperserequireexemplary
treatment.Anyliberalattitudebyimposingmeagresentencesor
takingtoosympatheticviewmerelyonaccountoflapseoftime
inrespectofsuchoffenceswillberesultwisecounterproductive
inthelongrunandagainstsocietalinterestwhichneedstobe
caredforandstrengthenedbystringofdeterrenceinbuiltinthe
sentencingsystem.
256.
Punjab,[(2013)2SCC713],theHon'bleSupremeCourtlaiddownthetest
andfactorsfortheawardofdeathsentenceasfollows:
19. .........................To award death sentence, the aggravating
circumstances(crimetest)havetobefullysatisfiedandthere
shouldbenomitigatingcircumstance (criminaltest)favouring
132
theaccused.Evenifboththetests aresatisfiedasagainstthe
accused,eventhenthecourt hastofinallyapplytherarestof
rarecasestest(RRTest), whichdependsontheperceptionof
thesocietyandnot Judgecentric,thatis,whether the society
willapprovetheawardingofdeathsentencetocertaintypesof
crimeornot.Whileapplyingthistest,theCourthastolookinto
varietyofactorslikesociety'sabhorrence,extremeindignation
andantipathytocertaintypesofcrimeslikerapeandmurderof
minor girls, especially intellectually challenged minor girls,
minor girlswithphysicaldisability,oldandinfirmwomenwith
those disabilities, etc. Examples are only illustrative and not
exhaustive.Courtsawarddeathsentence,becausethe situation
demands,duetoconstitutionalcompulsion,reflectedbythewill
ofthepeople,andisnotJudgecentric.
257.
133
tosocietyandcontinuesto doso,threateningitspeacefuland
harmoniouscoexistence. Thecourthastofurtherenquireand
believethattheaccusedcannotbereformedorrehabilitatedand
shallcontinuewithhiscriminalacts.Thusabalancesheetisto
bepreparedin consideringtheimpositionofdeathpenaltyof
the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and a just
balanceistobestruck.
258.
TheHon'bleSupremeCourtinthematterofMaheshvs.Stateof
M.P.[(1987)2SCR710]observedthat
5. It is against this background that the request of the
appellants'counselorinterferencewiththesentencehastobe
considered.TheHighCourtobservesthattheactoftheappellant
wasextremelybrutal,revoltingandgruesomewhichshocksthe
judicial conscience. And again as in such shocking nature of
crime as the one before us which is so cruel, barbaric and
revolting,itisnecessaryto imposesuchmaximumpunishment
underthelawasameasureofsocialnecessitywhichworkasa
deterrenttootherpotentialoffenders.
6.WesharetheconcernoftheHighCourt.Wealsofeelthatit
willbeamockeryofjusticetopermittheseappellantstoescape
theextremepenaltyoflawwhenfacedwithsuchevidenceand
suchcruelacts.Togivethelesserpunishmentfortheappellants
wouldbetorenderthejusticingsystemofthiscountrysuspect.
The common man will lose faith in courts. In such cases, he
understands and appreciates the language of deterrence more
thanthereformativejargon.Whenwesaythis,wedonotignore
the needforareformativeapproachinthesentencingprocess.
But here, we have no alternative but to confirm the death
sentence.Accordingly,wedismisstheappeal.
259.
downtoconsiderthecaseas'rarestofrare',inordertodrawthebalance
sheetoftheaggravatingandmitigatingcircumstances,thiscourthastogoto
thefactsofthecase.
134
AGGRAVATINGFACTS:
1.
260.
Thepreplannedmanner
FromthefactsestablishedafterPreetideniedthe proposalfor
marriageaccusedstartedplanning.Heprocured2kg.sulphuricacidfrom
PW16onfalseground.Itshowsthathehadalreadycookedtheplanbefore
14/04/2013.Itwasnotasuddenact.ThenheexecuteditinMumbaiata
crowdedplacefromwherehecouldeasilyescape.Therefore,themannerof
offenceisapreplanned.
2.
261.
Exceptionalcruelattitudeandbrutality
The victimwas in helpless condition.She couldnotsmell the
intention of the accused. 2 kg. sulphuric acid flung on her face at once
corrodedthecompleteface,destroyingandmeltingeyes,nose,lipsandeven
teethenamel.Shewasnotatallinvolvedinanydisputeorenmitywiththe
accused.Itwasthegameofthemindoftheaccused,whowantedtohaveher
andwithoutconsideringthewillofPreetihedestroyedherbeauty,which
mighthave attractedhim. Since the incident tillher death,she couldnot
guesswhowoulddosuchthingswithher.EvenPW13NituSolankitookit
lightlywhenPreetiinformedherabouttheproposaloftheaccusedandhis
warningtonottogotoMumbai.Ifsuchsmallinfatuationcausedaccusedto
makePreetitofacetheextremepainphysicallyaswellasmentally,nogirl
aroundhimwillbesafe.Theactwasoutofhisownfantasywhichneitherbe
restrained nor reformed. The act was committed in extremely brutal,
135
grotesque,diabolical,revoltinganddastardlymannersoastoarouseintense
andextremeindignationofthecommunity.
3.
262.
Extremeperversity
Lovecannotcreateterror.Ifitwouldhavebeenapurelovethe
accusedwouldhavebeenhappytoseethevictimandhernearoneshappy.As
againstthishesnatchedherlifeanddevastatedherparents.Hewantedher
tosuffer.Itisnotalovebutaperversity.
263.
WhenPreetirefusedtojointhelifeoftheaccused,hedestroyed
thethingwhichheliked.TherewasnoprovocationonthepartofPreeti.The
evidenceofdoctorsdepictsthementalandphysicalconditionofPreeti.She
died of septicemia developed out of the acid burn injuries. The plastic
surgeonscouldneverperformanysurgerysincethedayofherhospitalization
till she breathed her last. The trauma, suffering and agony is beyond
imagination.
264.
Wecannotignorethestruggleofacidsurvivorwhohastomove
around with her face and body which are extremely deformed and look
terrible.Theyhideawayfromthesocietybecauseoftheirlooks.
265.
Acidattacksareevenworsethanrapeasthevictims,whoare
femalearesubjectedtohumiliationonadailybasis.Theyareshunnedand
136
ostracised.
266.
Theattacks themselvesarebrief,withtheperpetratorneeding
nothingmorethanabottleofacidandafewsecondstoflingitonthefaceof
hisvictim;butforthewomanwhoendureit,theeffectslastalifetime.
267.
Searingpain,lengthyandcostlymedicalprocedure,permanent
disfiguration and induced social isolation are amongst the most obvious
impacts.Thetraumaandloneliness,thoughlessvisible,followthiscrime.
Theconstantlongtermmedicalattentionwouldbearequisiteforsurvivalfor
no fault. Many victims die as a result of septicemia caused by severe
infections.
268.
deafnessandlossofsmell,lipsdissolve,leavingteethexposedandvictims
unabletospeakoreat,eyelidsarequicklyandeasilyburnedaway,leadingto
blindness.Eventheskullisaffected.
269.
pain.Italsowipesoutawoman'schanceoffindingahusband,startinga
family,orleadinganormallife.
137
270.
Disfiguration,particularlyintheface,neckandshoulders,isso
intensethatmanyvictimsendupascompleterecluse,eitherhiddenawayby
theirfamiliesortooashamedtostepoutinpublic.Nobodylikestolookat
theirface.
271.
Itisanattempttodeprivevictimforhernaturalbeautysono
oneelsewilllookatherormarryherbecausesheturnedhimdown.
272.
Until strongmeasuresareputinplace,IndianWomanwilllive
273.
Theoffenceofrapeandmurderareconsideredastheheightof
brutality and perversity and found as rarest of rate. But the intensity of
presentcrimeisatparrathermore.
274.
Acidnotonlydamagesthebodybutperforatesthesoulbeyond
anystretchofimagination.Itishighlyimprobablethatifthevictimofacid
attacksurvivessomebodymaymarryher.Ifshegetssuchfortune,itcannot
bedeniedthatherownchildmaygetsscaredofherbylookingatherface.
Whatelsecanbemorepainfulthansuchamomentforamother/woman.In
societyalsonobodywillcometoher.Itremindstheleprosypatientsinearlier
dayshidingthemselvesfearedofsocialboycott.Therecanbenothingmore
138
painfulthanthissituation.Duetotheirunacceptablelookstheyoftenfindit
difficulttogetemploymenttoo.
275.
Preetisurvivedfor30daysafterherintrepidbattlebecauseher
4.
276.
Antisocialnatureofthecrime:
Theconductoftheaccusedisnotonlyasimplicitoracidthrow
139
society which were continued for centuries and which were against the
equality of women. The legal disabilities with regard to the marriage,
inheritance, guardianship andadoption have beenremoved.Now,she can
have economic rights. But the elements like accused make all the social
developmentstotakebackseat.Theattitudeisthoughnotfullyremovedfrom
thepatriarchalsociety,duetothefearoflawitissupressed.Itwilltaketime
to change the situation. But if such attitude is preserved and reared it
becomesacontagiousattitudewhichisdetrimentaltothesociety.Though,
womanhasbecomeindependentifsheisstillallowedtobecomeaproperty
ofman,alllawsandsocialdevelopmentswillbecomefruitlessanduseless.It
is an antisocial element deeply penetrating the very independence of a
woman guaranteed by the constitution. Thus this is purely an antisocial
crime.
5.
277.
Shockingtheconscienceofsociety:
Incaseof MachhiSingh(supra), theHon'bleApexCourtheld
that,thedeathpenaltymaybeimposedwhensociety'scollectiveconscience
isshocked,itwillexpectthe holderofjudicialpowercentertoinflictthe
deathpenaltyirrespectiveoftheirpersonalopinionasregards,desirabilityor
otherwiseofretainingdeathpenalty.Further,incaseof'Vinodhini',theneed
ofhourissensedbyHon'bleMadrasHighCourt.TheHon'bleBomabyHigh
Court in case of Kailas Sitaram Adagale V/s. State of Maharashtra
140
[MANU/MH/0152/2016]undersection307ofI.P.C.sentencedtheaccused
to life imprisonment considering the nature of crime of hurling acid, by
observing,
''Hence,thequestioniswhetherthisincidenthasshockedthe
collectiveconscienceofsociety.Theanswerisinaffirmative.It
hasnotonlyshockedtheMumbaicitybuttheentirenationas
such.Itwasafterthisincidentconsideringtheconditionof
survivorsandtheincreaseinnumberofoffencewiththeuseof
acidwhichiseasilyavailableandcheap,Hon'bleApexcourt
issuedguidelinesforregulationofsaleofacid''.
278.
Suchcrimeshaveputabigquestionmarkonthesafetyofentire
womanhood.Thegirlsarenotsafe.Ithascreatedafeelingofhelplessnesin
parents,in girls and in everysection of society.It has alsocreated afear
psychosisandleftascaronthesocialorder''.
279.
InDevenderPalSinghv.State(NCTofDelhi)[(2002)5SCC
234],theHon'bleSupremeCourtobservedthat
58.FromBachanSinghv.StateofPunjabandMachhiSingh
v. State of Punjab the principle culled out is that when the
collectiveconscienceofthecommunityissoshocked,thatitwill
expecttheholdersofthejudicialpowercentretoinflictdeath
penalty irrespective of their personal opinion as regards
desirabilityorotherwiseofretainingdeathpenalty,thesamecan
beawarded.
280.
567],theHon'bleSupremeCourtwhilereferringtotheguidelineslaiddown
in BachanSingh and MachhiSingh(supra) emphasizedthatcriminallaw
141
142
MITIGATINGCIRCUMSTANCES:
1.
281.
Youngage:
Inthefollowingcases,theHon'bleSupremeCourtinspiteofthe
youngageoftheaccusedconfirmedthedeathsentence:
1.
IncaseofSevakaPerumalv/s.StateofTamilnadu[AIR
1991SC1463],Hon'bleSupremecourtobservedthat,
''itisfurthercontendedthattheappellantsareyoungmen.They
arethebreadwinnersoftheirfamilyeachconsistingofayoung
wife,minorchildandagedparentsandthat,therefore,thedeath
sentencemaybeconvertedintolife.Wefindnoforce.These
compassionategroundswouldalwaysbepresentinmostcases
andarenotrelevantforinference.''
Likewiseinthecasesliketheoneinhandtheaccusedare
mostlyyoungageperson.Onthebasisofthebrutalityofcrimewhichwas
premeditatedagainstayoungdefencelessgirltheagefactorisnotrelevant.
2.
IncaseofDhananjoyChatterjeev.StateofWestBengal
[(1994)2SCC220],itisobservedthat,
''Inrecentyears,therisingcrimerate...........particularlyviolent
crimeagainstwomanhasmadethecriminalsentencingbythe
courtsasubjectofconcern....
Inouropinionthemeasureofpunishmentinagivencase
mustdependupontheatrocityofthecrime,theconductofthe
criminalandthedefencelessandunprotectedstateofthevictim.
Impositionofappropriatepunishmentisthemannerinwhichthe
courtsrespondtothesociety'scryforjusticeagainstthe
criminals.Thecourtsmustnotonlykeepinviewtherightsofthe
criminalbutalsotherightsofthevictimofcrimeandthesociety
atlargewhileconsideringappropriatepunishment.
282.
TheHon'bleSupremeCourtemphasisesthattheyoungageofthe
accusedisnotbyitselfadeterminativefactoragainsttheawardofthedeath
sentence. The cumulative circumstances have to be taken together and a
143
comprehensiveviewhastobetakenafterproperweightagebeinggivento
eachcircumstance. Consideringthegravityoftheoffenceyoungageofthe
accusedcannotbeadecisivefactor.
2.
283.
Possibilitytoreform:
The attempt of the accused out of his own fantasy cannot be
reformed.Thoughhehasnocriminalantecedents,heisrealsadist andthe
possibility of reformation is rare. The manner of attack was preplanned.
Therewasnoparticipationofvictiminstigatingtheaccusedtocommitthe
crime. It was simple incident to which the accused responded in cruel
manner.Forsuchsmallincidenthereachedtotheconclusiontouseahuge
quantityofacidtocommitcrime.HetraveledfromDelhitoMumbaitoget
theresultsasperhisplan.Heexecutedtheplaninbusycrowdedplacefrom
wherehecouldeasilyescape.Hecouldremainawayfrompolicemachinery
foralmost8months.Theactoftheaccusedofeliminatingthevictimisoutof
thesimplerefusalofPreetitogetmarriedtohim.Suchincidentsarevery
commoninSociety,whereaboyproposesbutagirlrefuses.Theboymayget
hurt.Hecanremaindisturbed,mayfeelpainbuthecomesoutofthesame.
Theboyscannotinsistthegirlstoacceptsuchproposal.
284.
In Maheshv.StateofM.P.[(1987)2SCR710],theHon'ble
SupremeCourtwhilerefusingtoreducethedeathsentenceobservedthus:
"Itwillbeamockeryofjusticetopermittheaccusedto
144
escapetheextremepenaltyoflawwhenfacedwithsuch
evidence and such cruel acts. To give the lesser
punishment for the accused would be to render the
justicingsystemofthecountrysuspect.Thecommonman
willlosefaithincourts.Insuchcases,heunderstandsand
appreciates the language of deterrence more than the
reformativejargon."
285.
2147],theHon'bleSupremeCourtsaid:
"85.Thequestion,therefore,isshouldthecountrytaketherisk
ofinnocentlivesbeinglostatthehandsofcriminalscommitting
heinouscrimesintheholyhopeorwishfulthinkingthatoneday
ortheother,acriminal,however,dangerousorcalloushemay
be,willreformhimself.Valmikisarenotborneverydayandto
expect that our present generation, with the prevailing social
and economic environment, would produce Valmikis day after
dayistohopefortheimpossible."
286.
Moreover,in Md.Mannanv.StateofBihar,[(2011)8S.C.C
65],theaccusedwasconvictedforrapeandmurder.TheHon'bleSupreme
Courtinthiscaseopinedthattheaccusedisamenacetothesocietyand
shallcontinuetobesoandhecannotbereformed.
287.
Womenarenotslavesnorjustapiece.Sheisalivingbodywith
blood,flesh,bonesandnervessameasmenhave.Theydofeelthesamepain.
Why a girl should fight just to survive. She can have her own choice for
everything. However, the mentality of the accused is chauvinistic, which
cannotbechanged.TodayPreetiandtomorrowsomeothergirlwillbehis
145
victim.Theaccusedneithershowedrepentancenorremorseforwhateverhe
did.Theplacechosen,thetoolusedandtimetakentocommitcrimewithout
provocation,suggestthattheaccusedcommittedacoldbloodedmurder.He
committedsuchgruesomecrimeforsuchpityreason.Itclearlyreflectsthat
thereishardlyanychanceofhisreformationandhedeservesnomercy.
3.
288.
Socioeconomicstatus:
It is a crime of violence against woman. Therefore, it cannot
dependuponthesocialstatusofvictimandaccused.Therefore,youngage,
socio economic condition and chance of reformation cannot become the
mitigatingcircumstancesforthepresentaccused.
289.
146
290.
Acidattackispossiblyoneofthemostheinouscrimeswhicha
291.
Suddenlythereisanincreaseincasesofacidattack.Itisfound
asaneasytool.Itisspreadinglikeepidemic.Theeffectswillbemonstrousif
notcheckedatthisstage.Yetnodeterrencehascomeforwardinthesociety.
Therefore,thereisnofearinthemindsoftheoffenders.Ifthisisnotthe
stagetherewillbenoneinfuture.Disfigurementhasbecomecommonbut
deathsarerareoutofacidattack.
292.
circumstanceshighlightingtheyoungageoftheaccused,hissocioeconomic
background, his clean antecedents and his chances of reformation, are
insignificantinthelightoftheaggravatingcircumstances.
293.
Atthisjuncture,itisworthnotethattheacidattackonwomanis
viewedseriouslybytheHon'bleMadrasHighCourtincaseofSureshkumar
@AppuV/s.State[CriminalAppealno.361of2014],inwhichconcernis
shownaboutvictim''Vinodhini'',whodiedinacidattack.TheHon'bleMadras
147
HighCourtobservedthat
So far as the quantum of punishment is concerned, the trial
court ought to have examined the question of sentence
elaborately to findout whether the offence committed bythe
accusedwouldfallwithintherarestofrarecasesaspropounded
by the Hon'ble High Court in Bachan Singh v. State of
Maharashtra, 1980(2) SCC 684 so as to impose the capital
punishmentontheaccused.Unfortunately,thetrialcourthasnot
madeanysuchexercise.theGovernmentofunionTerritoryof
Puducherry also has not made any appeal challenging the
quantumofpunishment.Therefore,weareunabletogointothe
questionastowhetherimposingdeathpenaltyontheaccused
wouldbetheonlyappropriatesentencefortheaccusedandalso
toexaminewhetherlifesentencewouldbeinadequate.Without
goingintothequestionastowhethertheaccusedisliabletobe
visitedwithdeathpenaltyornot,weareforcedtoconfirmthe
quantumofsubstantivesentenceandimposedbythetrialcourt
fortheoffenceunderSection302ofI.P.C''.
Itisfurtherobservedthat
''Therecurrenceofthesekindsofbrutalmurdersofyounggirls,
eitheroutofsexualobsessionorfailureofloveorforanyother
reasons will tend to create a sense of insecurity among the
womenfolk. We believe that in order to check recurrence of
these kinds of heinous crimes, the police and the other
authoritiesinthesystemshouldactwithironhandstobringto
book the culprits, to have speedy trials and to get deterrent
punishments.Weareawarethattherearecriticismsaboutthe
deterrent theory of punishment. But, that will not deter. Our
beliefthatthestoryof'Vinodhini'shallbeatleastalessonand
deterrenceforthosewhomayhaveasemblanceoffeelingto
commitsuchgruesomeactsagainstthewomenfolk.Afterall,
ourtraditionglorifiesourwomenasgoddesses''.
Conclusion
294.
Inlightofthefactsofthiscaseandthelawlaiddownbythe
Hon'bleSupremeCourtandHighCourts,thiscourtisoftheconsideredview
thattheinstantcasewithoutashadowofdoubt,fallsinthecategoryofthe
rarest of rare cases. The incident is extremely gruesome, revolting and
148
horrifying.Astrongmessageneedstobesenttothemiscreantsofsuchcrimes
againstwomenthatsuchcrimesshallnotbetolerated.Thiscrimeisfirstofits
kindinIndia.Thiscourtisnotintheknowledgeofanycaseinwhichacrime
ofsuchanaturehasbeencommittedandtheaccusedissentenced,tilldate.
Iftherisingtrendtowardssuchcrimeisnotcheckedatitsinception,itwill
havemonstrouseffectonsocietyandsoonitwillspreadwidely.Therefore,
deterrentpunishmentistheneedofthehour.Beingfullyawareofnatureof
the death penalty the court has reached the conclusion to award death
sentencetotheaccused.
295.
Asregardsthecompensationofthevictimthelegalaidauthority
informedthecourtthatamountofRs.2,00,000/hasbeenpaidtotheparents
ofPreeti.SpecialP.P.ShriUjjwalNikamalsoconcededthesame.Therefore,
thereisnoquestionofawardingcompensationundervictimcompensation
scheme.
296.
Accordingtotheconclusiondrawninabovediscussion,Iproceed
topassthefollowingorder:
ORDER
1.
u/s.235(2)ofCr.P.C.fortheoffencepunishableundersection302ofI.P.C.
andsentencedtodeath,andbehangedbythenecktillheisdead,subjectto
confirmationbytheHonbleBombayHighCourt.
149
2.
Accusedisherebyconvictedundersection235(2)ofCr.P.C.for
the offence punishable under section 326B of Indian Penal Code and
sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay fine of
Rs.5,000/(RupeesFiveThousandonly)indefaulttosufferR.I.for6months.
3.
Accusedisherebyacquittedu/s.235(1)ofCr.P.Cc.fortheoffence
punishableundersection326AofIndianPenalCode.
4.
ThevaluablemuddemalpropertyArt.I(colly.)fourcurrencynotes
150
ofRs.10/fivecoinsofRs.10/insideonecurrencynoteofRs.5andonecoin
ofRs.5/andonecoinofRs.1/seizedinthiscaseshallstandforfeitedtothe
StateGovernmentandshallbedepositedintheStateTreasury,afterexpiryof
appealperiod.
6.
concurrently.However,thesentenceawardedtoaccusedundersection302of
I.P.C. remain suspended till its confirmation by the Honble Bombay High
Court.
7.
Inviewofsection28(2)ofCr.P.C.entireproceedingofthiscase
alongwith the property be sent to the Honble Bombay High Court for
confirmationofthesentenceagainsthim,attheearliest.
8.
Deathsentenceagainstaccusedshallnotbeexecutedunlessitis
confirmedbytheHonbleBombayHighCourt.
9.
CriminalProcedure,1973fortheperiodofimprisonmentalreadyundergone,
i.e.,from17/01/2014tilldate.
10.
Jailauthorityisdirectedtotakenoteofthisorder.
11.
Accusedisherebyinformedthatheisentitledtopreferanappeal
against this judgment within the statutory period of appeal i.e, within 30
days.
12.
Fineamount,ifrecovered,bepaidtothecomplainantafterthe
appealperiodisover.
151
13.
Issuanceofcertifiedcopyofthejudgmentisexpedited.
14.
Copyofjudgmentbeprovidedtoaccusedfreeofcosts.
15.
Sessionscaseno.311of2014standsdisposedofaccordingly.
Date:08.09.2016
Dateofdirectdictationstartedfrom:04.09.2016onwards
Dictationcompletedon:08/09/2016
DateofordersignedbyH'Court:14/09/2016.
(A.S.SHENDE)
Addl.SessionsJudge,
CityCivil&SessionsCourt,
Gr.Mumbai.
152
''IaffirmthatthecontentsofthisPDFfilejudgmentsarethesame,wordto
word,aspertheoriginaljudgment.''
NameofStenowithpost
:
Mrs.RupaliS.Bhor
HigherGradeStenographer
NameoftheJudge(withCourtno.) Kum.A.S.Shende
AdditionalSessionsJudge,Court
RoomNo.18
DateofpronouncementofJudgment :08/09/2016
JudgmentsignedbytheP.O.On
:14/09/2016
Judgmentuploadedon
:16/09/2016