CR.A/363/2002 1/18 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 363 of 2002 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLAKIA : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI : ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= RATILAL VAGHJIBHAI - Appellant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 - Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : THROUGH JAIL for Appellant(s) : 1,MRS SHILPA R SHAH for Appellant(s) : 1, MR HL JANI APP for Opponent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLAKIA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 04/04/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT CR.A/363/2002 2/18 JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI) 1.0 This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Surat in Sessions Case No.3 of 2001 dated 16.02.2002 whereby, the appellant, original accused, was convicted for the offence punishable u/s. 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “the IPC”) and acquitted from the offence punishable u/s.3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes [Prevention of Atrocities] Act, 1989 (for short, “the Atrocities Act”). For conviction u/s. 302 IPC, the appellant was sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for Life. 2.0 The facts in brief, as emerging from the record, are as under; 2.1 On 03.10.2000, at around 0930 hrs., while victim – Arunaben Chabilbhai Chauhan was working in a tailoring shop situated in Olpad Town of Surat District, the appellant came there and all of a sudden, poured a bucket full of Acid on the victim. As a result thereof, the victim made shouts of help and during that time, the appellant ran away from the CR.A/363/2002 3/18 JUDGMENT scene of offence. Immediately thereafter, the victim rushed inside the shop where she was working and changed her clothes. During the interregnum period, the other shop-keepers and visitors from the nearby area had gathered at the scene of offence on hearing the shouts of the victim. 2.2 As the victim had sustained severe burn injuries, she was taken to the Civil Hospital for necessary treatment. However, at around 1130 hrs., the victim succumbed to the injuries during the course of treatment. A complaint with respect to the aforesaid incident was filed against the appellant before Olpad Police Station by one of the shop- keepers, which came to be registered as I – C. R. No. 143 of 2000 for offence punishable u/s. 302 IPC and Section 3(10)(11) of the Atrocities Act. 2.3 On the said complaint, necessary preliminary investigation was carried out. As the alleged offence was one punishable under the provisions of the Atrocities Act, investigation into the alleged offence was taken over by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. The Investigating Officer prepared the inquest 'panchnama'. 'Marnottar' form was filled up CR.A/363/2002 4/18 JUDGMENT and necessary arrangements were made for sending the dead body for performing post-mortem. ‘Panchnama’ with respect to the place of incident was prepared in the presence of ‘panchas’ and necessary 'muddamal' articles were collected. 2.4 In the meanwhile, at around 1150 hrs., the appellant was brought to New Civil Hospital, Surat for necessary treatment, as he had attempted to commit suicide by consuming some poisonous substance. At New Civil Hospital, Surat, the appellant was treated as an indoor patient for a period of seven days and was discharged on 10.10.2000. 2.5 Further investigation was carried out and statements of several witnesses were recorded. As cogent evidence was found against the appellant, he was arrested on 11.10.2000. Arrest ‘panchnama’ was prepared in the presence of ‘panchas’. The clothes wore by the appellant, at the relevant point of time, were also seized by way of a separate 'panchnama'. After completing all the necessary formalities, the appellant was sent to judicial custody. All the ‘muddamal’ articles so collected were sent to F.S.L. for examination along with a forwarding letter. On CR.A/363/2002 5/18 JUDGMENT receipt of the F.S.L. Report, Post-mortem Report and other Reports, they were kept in the investigation file. 2.6 Further investigation was carried out and statements of several witnesses were recorded. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Court of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Surat. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the District & Sessions Court, Surat and it was numbered as Sessions Case No.3 of 2001. The case was then transferred to the learned Addl. Sessions Judge for disposal on merits. On production of the appellant, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge framed the charge and as the appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge leveled against him, trial was conducted. 3.0 In order to prove the guilt of the appellant, the prosecution has examined eighteen witnesses, namely, PW – 1 Parimalbhai Harishchandra Modi at Exhibit – 11, who is the complainant and also claims to be an eye-witness, PW – 2 Kalpeshbhai Ishwarbhai Patel at Exhibit – 12 also claims to be an CR.A/363/2002 6/18 JUDGMENT eye-witness, PW – 3 Dakshaben Balubhai Aahir at Exhibit – 13 also claims to be an eye-witness, PW – 4 Vidushekhar Hargovind Tripathi at Exhibit – 14 is the Medical Officer who performed the post-mortem, PW – 5 Kantilal Becharsinh Chasiya at Exhibit – 17 is a visitor who had come to the shop where the victim was working on the day prior to the date of the alleged incident in question, PW – 6 Bhupendrabhai Ramjibhai Patel at Exhibit – 20 is the owner of the shop where the victim was working, PW – 7 Manojkumar Natwarbhai Patel at Exhibit – 21 is the shop-keeper from whose shop the appellant had purchased some pesticide, PW – 8 Kamleshbhai Amratbhai Tailor at Exhibit – 23 has been declared 'hostile' by the Court below, PW – 9 Ganeshbhai Maganbhai at Exhibit – 24 is a ‘panch’ witness of the ‘panchanama’ of the place of incident, PW – 10 Padmaben Jamubhai at Exhibit – 25 is a student of the tailoring shop where the victim was working, PW – 11 Bipinbhai Balubhai Contractor at Exhibit – 26 has been declared 'hostile' by the Court below, PW – 12 Mohmad Naim Mohmad Nasir at Exhibit – 27 is a 'panch' witness of the 'panchnama' regarding the physical examination of the appellant, PW – 13 Sumitraben Narottambhai Patel at Exhibit – 28 is the owner of the Tailoring shop where the victim was CR.A/363/2002 7/18 JUDGMENT working, PW – 14 Dr. Vipul Sahjanand Srivastav at Exhibit – 31 is the Medical Officer who gave necessary treatment to the appellant, PW – 15 Ravindrabhai Mangubhai Chaudhary at Exhibit – 33 is the Official of the F.S.L., PW – 16 Bhupendra Naginsinh Chavda at Exhibit – 35 is the Senior Police Inspector who carried out the preliminary investigation, PW – 17 Mahendrasinh Pratapsinh Nakum at Exhibit – 38 is the Investigating Officer and PW – 18 Gajendrasinh Pratapsinh Puvar at Exhibit – 44 is the Dy.S.P. who filed the charge-sheet. 3.1 The prosecution has also relied upon several documentary evidence, more particularly, the Post- mortem Report at Exhibit – 15, the cause of death Certificate at Exhibit – 16, the Bill pertaining to purchase of a 'saree' at Exhibit – 19, the Bill pertaining to purchase of pesticide by the appellant at Exhibit – 22, the Medical Certificate of the appellant at Exhibit – 32, the Report of the F.S.L. with regard to inspection of the scene of offence at Exhibit – 34, the complaint at Exhibit – 36, the Inquest 'panchnama' at Exhibit – 37, the ‘panchnama’ of the place of incident at Exhibit – 39, the ‘panchnama’ regarding seizure of clothes at Exhibit – CR.A/363/2002 8/18 JUDGMENT 40, the Caste Certificate of the victim at Exhibit – 41, the Arrest 'panchnama' at Exhibit – 42 and the F.S.L. Report at Exhibit – 43. 3.2 On submission of the closing purshis, the further statement of the appellant u/s. 313 of the Cr.P.C. qua incriminating evidence was recorded. After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge passed the impugned judgment convicting the appellant for the alleged offence in question. Hence, the present Appeal. 4.0 Mrs. Shilpa R. Shah, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, has fairly conceded that she would not be able to assail the judgment delivered by the Court below so far as the aspects of presence of the appellant and the role played by him, at the relevant point of time, is concerned. However, she has submitted that the medical evidence on record does not support the case of the prosecution at all. 4.1 Learned Advocate has submitted that if we consider the entire evidence available on record, it CR.A/363/2002 9/18 JUDGMENT would be clear that the appellant had no intention to kill the victim but, only to disfigure her face. Therefore, the appellant could not be held guilty u/s. 302 IPC. 4.2 Learned Advocate has contented that the medical evidence states the cause of death as “shock as a result of about 55% to 60% superficial to deep chemical burns received over the body”. However, the prosecution has failed to prove that the death was caused as a result of the said injuries sustained over the body. She has, therefore, submitted that the appellant could not be convicted u/s. 302 IPC and that at the most, he could be convicted u/s. 304-I IPC. 4.3 In support thereof, learned Advocate for the appellant has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab reported in A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 465, more particularly, on the following observations made in Paras – 9 & 10 therein, which reads as under; “9. .......It must, of course, first be found that bodily injury was caused and the nature of the injury must be established, CR.A/363/2002 10/18 JUDGMENT that is to say, whether the injury is on the leg or the arm or the stomach, how deep it penetrated, whether any vital organs were cut and so forth. These are purely objective facts and leave no room for inference or deduction : to that extent the enquiry is objective; but when it comes to the question of intention, that is subjective to the offender and it must be proved that he had an intention to cause the bodily injury that is found to be present. 10. Once that is found, the enquiry shifts to the next clause:- “and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.” The first part of this is descriptive of the earlier part of the section, namely, the infliction of bodily injury with the intention to inflict it, that is to say, if the circumstances justify an inference that a man's intention was only to inflict a blow on the lower part of the leg, or some lesser blow, and it can be shown that the blow landed in the region of the heart by accident, then, though an injury to the heart is shown to be present, the intention to inflict an injury in that region, or of that nature, is not proved. In that case, the first part of the clause does not come into play. But, once it is proved that there was an intention to inflict the injury that is found to be present, then the earlier part of the clause we are not examining – “and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted” is merely descriptive. All it means is that it is not enough to prove that the injury found to be present is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature; it must in addition be shown that the injury is of the kind that falls within the earlier clause, namely, that the injury found to be present was the injury that was intended to be inflicted. Whether it was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary CR.A/363/2002 11/18 JUDGMENT course of nature is a matter of inference or deduction from the proved facts about the nature of the injury and has nothing to do with the question of intention”. 4.4 Similar principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Kishore Singh & Anr. v. The State of M.P. reported in A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 2267, Nachittar Singh v. State of U.P. reported in (1982) 1 S.C.C. 609, State of Karnataka v. Shivalingaiah reported in A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 115 and a decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Sukumaran v. State of Kerala reported in 2004 Cr.L.J. 1462. 4.5 Learned Advocate has next relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Anda & Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan reported in A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 148 wherein, it has been held that where several persons had intentionally caused bodily injuries sufficient in ordinary course to cause death, then all persons are guilty of murder under clause 'thirdly' of Section 300 r/s. Section 34 IPC. 4.6 Similar principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Rajwant Singh & ors. v. CR.A/363/2002 12/18 JUDGMENT State of Kerala reported in A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 1874. 4.7 Learned Advocate has, therefore, submitted that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, at the most, the appellant could be convicted u/s. 304-I IPC and not u/s. 302 IPC and the punishment of sentence imposed on him is required to be modified accordingly. 5.0 Mr. H.L. Jani, learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent – State, has submitted that the oral as well as documentary evidence on record clearly establish the presence and the role played by the appellant in the alleged offence in question. 5.1 Learned APP has contented that so far as the medical evidence on record is concerned, the same clearly establish that the victim died a homicidal death. 5.2 Learned APP has further contented that the appellant had poured Acid on the victim with the intention and knowledge that the same would result into her death. The Court below has rightly appreciated the entire evidence on record to that CR.A/363/2002 13/18 JUDGMENT effect and convicted the appellant u/s. 302 IPC. Hence, no interference is required from this Court in this Appeal. 6.0 Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the entire oral as well as documentary evidence available on record. Before proceeding with the matter on merits, we would like to record that in view of the admission made by the learned Advocate for the appellant, regarding the presence and the role played by the appellant in the alleged episode, we are not discussing the evidence on record qua the same in detail in this judgment. We are in complete agreement with the reasonings given by and the findings arrived at by the Court below qua the same, and accordingly, conclude that the prosecution has proved the presence as well as the role played by the appellant in the alleged offence beyond doubt. 7.0 So far as the medical evidence on record is concerned, it would not be out of place to state that the prosecution has been able to prove beyond doubt the fact that the victim died a homicidal death. The same is clear from the oral evidence of the Medical CR.A/363/2002 14/18 JUDGMENT Officer [PW – 4 Dr. Vidushekhar Hargovind Tripathi at Exhibit – 14] who has performed the post-mortem of the deceased and the Post-mortem Report at Exhibit – 15. Thus, in the aforesaid factual matrix, the only question that is now required to be considered by us is as to whether the injuries sustained by the victim, at the hands of the appellant, was the cause behind the death of the victim or not ? 8.0 The Medical Officer [Dr. Vidushekhar Hargovind Tripathi], who has performed the post- mortem of the deceased, has been examined as PW – 4 at Exhibit – 14. In his deposition, the Medical Officer has categorically opined that the cause of death was due to the “shock as a result of about 55% to 60% superficial to deep chemical burn received over the body”. The said Doctor has also opined that a person on whom such type of chemical is poured, then he / she would be in a position to talk for some time and that he / she would not succumb to the injuries immediately. This witness has been cross- examined at length before the Court below. However, nothing incriminating has come out from his cross- examination, which may lead us to believe his evidence to be untrue or unreliable. Thus, the CR.A/363/2002 15/18 JUDGMENT essence of the evidence led by this witness is that the act of the appellant was not sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 9.0 So far as the fact regarding the existence of 'intention' is concerned, from the record, it is abundantly clear that the appellant had the knowledge that his act would result to the death of the victim. However, for convicting the appellant u/s. 302 IPC, the prosecution has to prove that the injury sustained by the victim was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The said aspect is purely objective and inferential and has nothing to do with the 'intention' of the appellant. 10.0 In a given case, even if the accused had the intention to inflict such bodily injury as was likely to cause death but, the said injury was not sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, then the accused could not be convicted u/s. 302 IPC. Thus, it does not matter that there was no intention to cause death. It also does not matter that there was no intention even to cause an injury of a kind that is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. It also does not even CR.A/363/2002 16/18 JUDGMENT matter that there is no knowledge that an act of that kind will be likely to cause death. Once the intention to cause the bodily injury actually found to be present is proved, the only question that remains is whether, as a matter of purely objective inference, the injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 11.0 In the present case, considering the medical evidence on record in the background of the principle as discussed herein above, we are of the considered opinion that the case will essentially fall u/s. 304- I IPC and not u/s. 302 IPC, as the medical witness did not categorically opine that the injuries found on the victim, collectively or individually, were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. All that the medical evidence amounts to is that those injuries were 'likely' to cause death. Therefore, from the facts established by evidence, the only reasonable inference that can be drawn is that the appellant caused the injuries to the victim only with the knowledge that he was thereby likely to cause the death of the deceased. Accordingly, his conviction is required to be altered from one u/s. 302 IPC to that u/s. 304-I IPC and consequently, the CR.A/363/2002 17/18 JUDGMENT sentence is also required to be reduced in view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Virsa Singh's case (supra). 12.0 For the foregoing reasons, the Appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 16.01.2002 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Surat in Sessions Case No. 3 of 2001 is modified only to the extent that the conviction recorded u/s. 302 IPC is converted into one u/s. 304-I IPC and consequently, the appellant, original accused, is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of TEN YEARS. So far as acquittal u/s. 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes [Prevention of Atrocities] Act, 1989 is concerned, the same is confirmed. 12.1 The Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. Office is directed to send the Records & Proceedings to the trial Court concerned forthwith. CR.A/363/2002 18/18 JUDGMENT [R. P. DHOLAKIA, J.] [K. S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/*