Sri Bhagwan vs State Of U.P

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the prosecution was that on 26.05.1980 at 10.45 p.m. on hearing the cries of the deceased Yogender Nath Bhargava, Gurvanta Singh (PW-1) and Lalji Prasad-first informant (PW-

3) rushed to the place of occurrence which was Dayalbagh bus stand where they witnessed the action of the accused in pouring acid on the body of the deceased. It was also stated that while committing the said offence, the accused was heard saying “I will pay your Rs.1,300/- today”. It was the further case of the prosecution that on seeing the witnesses, the accused attempted to escape from the spot. However, he was caught by the persons who were present at the spot.

3. Both the deceased and the accused were stated to have been then brought to the police station by 11.10 p.m. where PW-3’s report (Exhibit Ka-2) was lodged based on which Exhibit Ka-3 FIR was prepared by H.M. Shivraj Singh (PW-6) wherein the crime under Section 326, IPC was registered in the General diary (Exhibit Ka-14). ASI Raghu Nath Singh (PW-4) recorded the statement of the deceased who was injured at that point of time under Section 161, Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C). Thereafter the injured was stated to have been sent to the District Hospital where he was examined by Dr. S.P. Mishra (PW-5) at 11.45 p.m. and the injury report was marked as Exhibit Ka-17. The injured stated to have breathed his last at 9.40 p.m. on 27.5.1980 due to extensive burn injuries sustained by him. Dr. S.P. Mishra (PW-5) who conducted the post-mortem on the body of the deceased issued Exhibit Ka-15, the report. Thereafter, the crime was altered as one under Section 302, IPC. Raghu Nath Singh (PW-4) ASI inspected the place of occurrence, prepared a site plan (Exhibit Ka-5), collected materials such as acid bottle (Exhibit-1), Nausadar (Exhibit-

2), gloves (Exhibit-4), and bag (Exhibit-3) from the spot under memo (Exhibit Ka-17). The inquest memo was marked as (Exhibit Ka-6). Investigation was stated to have been subsequently taken over by S.H.O. Raj Pal Singh on 28.05.1980.

4. Charge-sheet was thereafter laid as Exhibit Ka-5. The articles recovered were sent for chemical examination and the chemical examination report was marked as Exhibit Ka-18. The trial Court, on consideration of the evidence placed before it, both oral and documentary and the material objects, found the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 302, IPC and imposed upon him the sentence for life. The appellant’s appeal before the High Court having been dismissed, he has come forward with the present appeal before us.

24. The other argument was that the appellant lost his father and that on the day of occurrence he attended the ceremony in memory of his father and that when he was in such a distress situation, he would not have committed the offence of murder. We do not find any substance in the said feeble submission in order to deal with the same in very many details.

25. The other discrepancies pointed out such as the street light was not shown in the site plan and, therefore, PWs 1, 2 and 3 could not have witnessed the incident, that the gloves were not seized and that the appellant was a small grocery shop owner and there was previous criminal background and, therefore, the appellant could not indulge in such a crime to pour acid on the face of the deceased are all arguments of desperation. Further some such submissions are all trivial factors submitted before us which we find do not in any way affect the case of the prosecution which was fully established by legally acceptable evidence placed before the Courts below.

27. As in the case on hand we have found that the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which was relied upon as dying declaration, fulfilled the requirement, every provision of the law and fact. We, therefore, find that the said judgment fully supports the case of the prosecution in affirming the conviction imposed on the appellant.

31. Having regard to our above conclusion, we do not find any merit in the appeal. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed.

Date: 06/12/2012 This Appeal was called on for pronouncement of judgment today.

For Appellant(s) Mr. M.P. Shorawala,Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Anuvrat Sharma,Adv.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Swatanter Kumar and His Lordship.

Appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed reportable judgment.