Criminal Appeal No. 675-DBA of 2000 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No. 675-DBA of 2000 Date of decision: 3.7.2008. State of Punjab .....Appellant Versus Dimple Kumar ...Respondent **** CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND **** Present: Mr. D.S. Brar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab Mr. P.S. Hundal, Advocate for the respondent. S. D. ANAND, J. Respondent/accused Dimple Kumar @ Dimpa was prosecuted by the police of Police Station, Kathu Nangal in case FIR No. 16/97 on a charge under Section 326 IPC. However, he earned acquittal at the hands of learned Trial Judge who exonerated him of the charge of having disfigured the face of complainant Baldev Raj by throwing acid on his face. 2. The allegation in the context was that the complainant was thereby deprived of one eye, apart from the disfigurement of the face. 3. The prosecution plea, at the trial, was as under:- 4. Few days prior to the impugned occurrence, complainant Baldev Raj had seen respondent/accused Dimple @ Dimpa entering sugarcane field in the company of a girl. He advised the respondent/accused Criminal Appeal No. 675-DBA of 2000 -2- **** to refrain from a such like undesirable activity. That respondent/accused got enraged thereby. On 10.2.1997, the complainant was proceeding towards his house after the shop closing hours. When he reached near his residence, he was accosted by respondent/accused who, at that point of time was having a shawl all over himself. Before reaching near the complainant, respondent had crossed former's father as well who was standing in the street. As soon as respondent/accused reached near the complainant, he took out a glass from inside the shawl and threw the liquid contents thereof on the face of the latter who suddenly felt irritation on his face and eyes. It also blinded his vision. The raula raised by him attracted his father who made an abortive attempt to catch hold of the respondent/accused. Ram Saran son of Om Parkash, a cousin of the complainant, also spotted the respondent/accused proceeding towards the house of Beera son of Gian Singh. Baldev Raj complainant injured was taken to Batala for treatment. From there, he was advised to be shifted to Gurunanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar. It is there only that his statement was recorded by the police on 12.2.1997 which (statement) form the basis of First Information Report. Out of two injuries found on the person of Baldev Raj, one was declared grevious. 5. The prosecution examined PW-1 Constable Bhupinder Singh, PW-2 Baldev Raj, PW-3 Jagdish Chand, PW-4 Pawan Kumar, PW-5 ASI Jagir Singh, PW-6 Dr. Baljit Singh Dhillon and PW-7 Dr. Rattanjit Singh to prove the charge against the respondent. 6. In the course of interrogation, respondent made a disclosure statement Ex. PA where he offered to get the recovery of one glass effected. Criminal Appeal No. 675-DBA of 2000 -3- **** He informed the police that the place of concealment was to his exclusive knowledge and he offered to get the recovery thereof effected. His disclosure statement was attested by Pawan Kumar and Constable Bhupinder singh. Thereafter the respondent led the party to the place indicated in the course of disclosure statement and got the recovery of one glass effected which was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PB, in the presence of PW-4 Pawan Kumar and PW-1 Bhupinder Singh. 7. PW-1 Constable Bhupinder Singh was a member of the police party headed by ASI Jagir Singh on 16.2.1997 when Pawan Kumar, member Panchayat (PW-4), had produced the respondent/accused before ASI Jagir Singh at Adda, Jayantipur, to which place the police party had gone for investigation of a case. 8. PW-2 Baldev Raj is the first informant/complainant. 9. PW-3 Jagdish Chand is father of Baldev Raj PW-2. 10. PW-4 Pawan Kumar is Member Panachayat who produced the respondent/accused before the police. 11. PW-5 SI Jagir Singh is the investigating officer of the case. 12. PW-6 Dr. Baljit Singh Dhillon (Assistant Professor, Ophthalmology, Medical College, Amritsar) had examined Baldev Raj in response to a call received from the Surgical Department Unit and had opined that “in my opinion the damage to the right eye due to injury no. 2 is lasting and irreversible.” 13. PW-7 Dr. Rattanjit Singh, Medical Officer, SHC, Bindi Aullakh, Amritsar had, (alongwith Dr. Rajiv Rampal) medico legally examined Baldev Raj on 12.7.1997 and found the following injuries on his Criminal Appeal No. 675-DBA of 2000 -4- **** person:- “1. Bluish black discolouration with siging of haris was present on whole of the face including right ear, forehead more so on right side, front of neck and right side of the neck and upper aspect of the chest also. Ointment had been applied over those areas (Surgeons opinion and progress notes were advised.). 2. There was swelling on both the eye lids and the right eye. Patient was unable to open his right eye. (Advised eye surgeons opinion and progress notes.)” 14. Respondent/accused pleaded innocence on account of party faction. 15. DW-1 Mohinder Kaur was examined in defence evidence. 16. Learned Trial Magistrate invalidated the prosecution presentation on a finding that there was delay of two days in lodging of the FIR ( inasmuch as the impugned occurrence had taken place on the evening of 10.2.1997 but the FIR had been lodged on on 12.2.1997) and also the fact that no independent witness from the market had been examined at the trial. In support of the former finding, learned Trial Judge also observed that first informant did not lodge a report with the police post located in the village itself. Jagdish Chand PW-3 having conceded that he had (after hospitalisation of Baldev Raj PW-2) gone back to Jayantipur while his wife stayed over in the hospital at Batala to look after the complainant, the learned Magistrate was of the view that if father of the complainant could have come out of the hospital for going home, there was no reason why he Criminal Appeal No. 675-DBA of 2000 -5- **** could not have availed of that period to lodge an FIR. 17. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 18. The finding of exoneration recorded by the learned Magistrate deserves to be reversed. The reasons therefor are indicated as under:- 19. Though the law insists upon prompt notification of the offence to the police, there is no judicial pronouncement to the effect that an otherwise validly proved prosecution plea must be thrown out just on account of the fact that there had been delay in lodging of the report with the police. It is the job of the Court, in the course of the adjudicatory exercise, to find out whether the delay had resulted in miscarriage of justice and whether it had been availed of by the complainant party to dish out a false and concocted version of the impugned occurrence or not. The present is a case in which the face of Baldev Raj had been disfigured and his one eye had been lost. One does not have to strain much to imagine the mental state of a father, who finds that the face of his son had been disfigured and he had lost the vision in one eye for all times to come. In the first instance, there is nothing wrong on the part of the PW-3 Jagdish Chand in having first ensured that Baldev Raj got the medical aid at the earliest. A normal person, placed as Jagdish Chand in this case was would be most interested in ensuring in obtaining medical aid for the safety of his child rather than rushing to lodge an FIR with the police. 20. Likewise, it is illogical to expect that PW-3 Jagdish Chand would have come out of the hospital just in order to able to lodge a report to the police. His coming over to his house from the hospital could be for different purposes as well. When member of the family is in hospital, there Criminal Appeal No. 675-DBA of 2000 -6- **** would be certain needs of the patient and also the attendant which have to met by a visit to the home. Till such time patient of indicated category is reasonably well, the parent and other members of his family cannot be expected to fully comfortable. 21. In that view of things, we find nothing unnatural in the delay in lodging of the FIR. 22. Insofar as the non association of an independent person from the market is concerned, there also the plea raised is plainly misconceived. It is a matter of common observation that people are loathe to get associated with investigation of a case. The predicament could be on account of the fear of reprisal and it could well be that those available just wish to avoid getting involved in such like matter. The mouthful appeals by the police to the citizenry to cooperate with the police notwithstanding, the common man seems disinclined to associate himself with an investigation being conducted by the police to avoid repeated visits to the Police Station and the resultant harassment. 23. The prosecution has categorically proved the motive on the part of the respondent/accused which actuated him to commit the crime with which he was charged. There is precise evidence to the effact that Baldev Raj first informant/complainant had advised the respondent/accused to refrain from an undesirable activity. He tendered advice to the respondent when he found the latter entering the sugarcane field in the company of a girl. The respondent appears to have taken exception to the advice tendered by Baldev Raj, who thereby earned the wrath of the former. Criminal Appeal No. 675-DBA of 2000 -7- **** 24. Be that as it may, it is apparent that the respondent/accused was nourishing a grievance on account of the above indicated advice on the part of Baldev Raj. Out attention has not been invited to any fact on account of whereof of PW-2 Baldev Raj first informant and his father would have been inclined to falsely implicate the respondent/accused. A normal man would like to ensure that a person responsible for his disfigurement does not escape the fury of law. Infact it is not even an averment on behalf of the defence that complainant had any score to settle with the respondent/accused or any other reason to falsely implicate him in this case. 25. On a perusal of the material obtaining on the file, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge against the respondent/accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. The appeal filed by the State shall stand allowed. The judgment dated 24.7.2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar exonerating the respondent/accused shall stand set aside. The respondent/accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years under Section 326 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/-. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, it is ordered that, on realisation of fine, the same shall be paid to the complainant. In default of payment of fine, the respondent/accused shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. ( S. D. ANAND ) JUDGE July 03, 2008 (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) Pka JUDGE Criminal Appeal No. 675-DBA of 2000 -8- ****