IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 24TH JULY 2009 / 2ND SRAVANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2151 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.737/2007 of SESSIONS JUDGE, ERNAKULAM SC.137/2007 of II ADDL.ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ----------------------------------------------------------- ANIL, AGED 32 YEARS, (NOW IN CUSTODY C.NO. 2247, CP, TVM) S/O. KUTTAPPAN, PEPPATHI MALAYIL VEEDU, THEKKUMALA KARA. MANJALOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV.T.P. RESPONDENT(S)RESPONDENT/C OMPLAINANT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI C.S.HRITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2151 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of July, 2009. ORDER Heard counsel for petitioner and Public Prosecutor. 2. Petitioner faced trial in the court of learned Assistant Additional Sessions Judge-II, Ernakulam in S.C.No.137 of 2007 for offences punishable under Section 326 and 308 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the Code”). Case is that on account of previous enmity petitioner, on 17.12.2006 at about 1.30 a.m. poured formic acid on PW1 with intent to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder and in that process, voluntarily caused grievous hurt to him. Learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge found petitioner guilty, convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for various periods to run concurrently. Conviction and sentence were confirmed by learned Additional Sessions Judge. It is contended by learned counsel that conviction of petitioner is not legal and proper and that at any rate sentence is excessive. 3. PW1, the victim is a native of West Bengal. He along with PW2, also a native of that State was working in the hotel of PW3 during the relevant time. PW4 is a cook of that hotel. As per the evidence of PWs 1 to 4, PWs 1, 2 and 4 were staying in the hotel itself and using adjacent rooms and there used to occasional quarrels between petitioner and PW1. On 26.12.2006 also there was such a quarrel between petitioner and PW1. On 27.12.2006 at about 1.30 Crl.R.P.No.2151/2009 2 a.m. when PW1 was asleep in his room petitioner is said to have entered that room and poured acid on PW1. PW1 has given evidence in that line. He claimed to have identified the petitioner at the time of incident itself. PW2 stated that himself and petitioner were sleeping in the room adjacent to the room in which PW1 was sleeping. At about 1 a.m. on the day of incident he saw petitioner going out of the room with the plastic can. After about half an hour he heard the alarm of PW1 from the adjacent room, went there and found petitioner going out of the room with a plastic can. There was smell of acid in the room where PW1 was sleeping. PW1 had suffered burns. PW4 also heard cry of PW1 from the place of occurrence, reached there and found PW1 with burn injuries. He found the plastic can there. Himself and PW2 took PW1 to the bathroom and they poured water on him. Then they informed PW3, the owner of hotel. PW3 came there. PW1 was taken to the hospital. PW7 examined PW1 in the hospital and issued Ext.P5, wound certificate. Ext.P6 is the discharge certificate. Exts.P5 and P6 referred to the burn injuries suffered by PW1. In Ext.P5 it is stated that PW1 had suffered corrosive burns including on the face. The degree of burns is stated to be 60%. The history and cause of injury stated in Ext.P5 is that co-worker poured acid on the body while patient was asleep. PW7 has opined that complications arising out of the injuries could cause death. Crl.R.P.No.2151/2009 3 4. PW10 conducted the investigation. Ext.P2 is the mahazar for scene of occurrence. He seized MO1, plastic can containing about 100 ml. of acid from the place of occurrence. Ext.P3, the bill for purchase of acid was seized from the room used by petitioner, as per Ext.P2. Based on Ext.P3, PW1 questioned PW6, the shop owner who produced the bill book. Bill book was seized as per mahazar and returned to PW6. PW6 has given evidence that petitioner purchased formic acid from his shop as per bill (Ext.P3) on 26.12.2006. According to PW6, petitioner has purchased one kilogram of formic acid in MO1. It is based on the above evidence that petitioner was found guilty. 5. It is true that there is no medical evidence to support the claim of PW1 that he suffered loss of eye sight but that does not mean that his statement regarding loss of eye sight is not correct. It is only that there is no medical evidence to support that version of PW1. Assuming that loss of eye sight is not proved, Edts.P5 and P6 show that PW1 suffered extensive corrosive burns on his body including his face, the degree of which is 60%. Permanent disfiguration of face comes within the definition of 'grievous hurt'. 6. I have referred to the evidence of PWs 1 to 4, 6, 7 and 10. There is no reason why I should disbelieve the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 regarding the incident. Evidence of PWs 3 and 4 which also I find no reason to reject Crl.R.P.No.2151/2009 4 corroborated that evidence. A further fact which corroborated the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 is the evidence of PW6 supported by Ext.P3 and seizure of MO1 from the place of occurrence and the room occupied by the petitioner. It is proved that petitioner purchased formic acid from PW6 on the previous day of incident in MO1 and poured it on PW1 on the relevant day, time and place. 7. Then the question is whether the petitioner intended to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder. There, evidence of PW7 becomes relevant. He has stated that complications arising from the injuries can cause death. When petitioner purchased formic acid from PW6 on 26.12.2006 and it is not shown to be meant for any other purpose, I am inclined to think that he intended to pour it on PW1. Petitioner must be presumed to have thereby intended to cause death of PW1 as he should be deemed to have been aware of the natural consequence of his act, ie. death due to complications arising from the extensive degree of burns suffered by PW1 as opined by PW7. Viewed in that line I do not find reason to interfere with the conviction of the petitioner for offences found against him. 8. What remained for consideration is whether sentence imposed is excessive. Petitioner has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for offence punishable under Section 308 and five years under Section 326 of the Code. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has directed that Crl.R.P.No.2151/2009 5 sentence will run concurrently and that petitioner will get the benefit of set off. Though learned counsel made a fervent plea for leniency on sentence, considering the circumstances including the injuries suffered by PW1 and the calculated moves made by the petitioner with corrosive substance I am not inclined to think that any interference is called for. Leniency in such circumstances would amount to misplaced sympathy. Therefore that request of the learned counsel cannot be accepted. I do not find reason to interfere with the conviction or sentence awarded to the petitioner. This revision petition therefore is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks