DILIP KUMAR Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 30 -6 -2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir in Criminal Appeal No. 55/2003 affirming the judgment and order dated 5 -3 -2003 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Janjgir in Criminal Case No. 1398 of 1998 convicting the accused/applicants under Section 326 of IPC and sentencing both of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 300, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Briefs facts of the case are that on 5 -5 -1998 at about 1 a.m. when complainant/victim Pili Bai (P.W. -2) was sleeping in her courtyard along with her husband Samelal (P.W. -2) and niece Tilmati (P.W. -3), on account of some previous dispute accused/applicants entered the courtyard and threw acid on them as a result of which she sustained 18% and her niece (P.W. -3) 20% burn injuries on various parts of their body including face and breast. F.I.R. Ex. P -2 was lodged by the victim (P.W. -2) on the same day at 11.30 a.m. itself and based on this F.I.R., offence under section 324 of IPC was registered against the accused/applicants. Victim Pili Bai and her niece Tilmati were medically examined on the same day by Dr. S.N. Jangde (P.W. -8) vide Ex. P -5 and P -7 respectively. After completion of investigation charge -sheet was filed on 12 -6 -1998 against the applicants for the offences under sections 326 and 307/34 of IPC whereas the Court below framed charges against them for the offences under sections 324 and 326 of IPC.

(2.) SO as to hold the accused/applicants guilty, prosecution has examined as many as 09 witnesses in support of its case. Statements of the accused/applicants were also recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the charges levelled against them and pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case.

(3.) CONTENTION of Smt. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the applicants is that the applicants have been falsely implicated on account of some previous enmity. She submits that as the victims were sleeping in the open courtyard and the incident had taken place in absolute dark, it cannot be said that it is the applicants who had thrown acid on them. She submits that as per the medical report, Pili Bai (P.W. -2) suffered only simple injuries and therefore, at best, the applicants can be convicted for the offence under Section 324 of IPC. It has been argued that there is no FSL report to show that the liquid thrown on the complainant/victim and her niece was acid and merely on the basis of injury sustained by them it cannot be assumed that the same was acid. Lastly it has been argued that during pendency of this revision compromise has already been arrived at between the parties, victim (P.W. -2) has also filed her affidavit stating therein that she is no more interested to prosecute the applicants and that the applicants have already remained in jail for about one month and therefore the sentence imposed on them may be reduced to the period already undergone by them.