MAM RAJ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mam Raj, Chet Ram, Rajinder, Rohtash, Natho and Usha were arrested and sent for trial for committing offences under Sections 147/148/149/307/448/506/34 IPC in case FIR No.380/1987 registered at Police Station Kingsway Camp on the allegations that on 17.10.1987, they all formed an unlawful assembly, the object of which was to inflict injuries to Nathu Singh, Ramesh, Shankar and Gulshan. Pursuant to said common object, on 17.10.1987 at about 08.15 P.M. at house No.B-222, Dakha Village, Kingsway Camp, they inflicted injuries to Nathu Singh by a pharsa in an attempt to murder him and voluntarily poured acid on the person of Shankar Dass, Gulshan Kumar and Ramesh besides criminally intimidating them. Similar were the allegations against Kumari Rama who faced trial before Juvenile Justice Board. The police machinery was set in motion when Daily Diary (DD) No.25 was assigned to ASI Ramesh Chand for investigation who with Ct.Dharamvir went to the spot and saw number of individuals with acid burns. They were taken and admitted at JPN hospital. The Investigating Officer collected MLCs of the injured and lodged First Information Report after recording victim Nathu Singh s statement (Ex.PW-1/A). During the course of investigation, statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded and the accused persons were arrested. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against all of them; they were duly charged and brought to trial. The prosecution examined 14 witnesses and produced medical evidence. In their 313 statements, the accused persons pleaded false implication and denied their complicity in the crime. They examined three witnesses i.e.Manohar Lal (DW-1), Sukhpal (DW-2) and Om Parkash (DW-3) in defence. It is significant to note that during trial, Smt.Natho expired and the proceedings against her were dropped as abated . Finally, the trial resulted in the conviction of Mam Raj and Usha only under Section 307/324/506 IPC. Be it noted, the rest of the accused persons i.e. Rohtash, Chet Ram and Rajinder were acquitted of all the charges. The State did not challenge their acquittal. Being aggrieved Mam Raj and Usha preferred the appeal to challenge the correctness of the impugned judgment dated 19.02.2002 in Sessions Case No.672/1996. It is relevant to note that during the pendency of the appeal Mam Raj died and the appeal stood abated on 27.03.2012. Usha is the sole appellant whose involvement in the crime is to be ascertained.

(2.) At the outset, it may be mentioned that injuries sustained by Nathu Singh, Ramesh, Gulshan and Shankar are not under challenge. Appellant has denied to be the author of the injuries. It was vehemently stressed that the complainant and his companions were aggressors and had attempted to dispossess them from premises No.B-222, Dhaka Village forcibly after having lost civil suit. They threw/poured acid on Usha, Rohtash and Mam Raj and they suffered unexplained acid burns on their bodies and were medically examined. Counsel urged that in the process of throwing acid on them, the assailants also got burns injuries with acid which accidently fell upon them. Counsel urged that no specific role was assigned to Usha in the throwing of acid on the complainant and his associates. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor urged that the evidence of all the victims is consistent and Usha has been implicated along with others for throwing acid upon them. The impugned judgment warrants no interference without sound reasons.

(3.) Usha has not denied her presence at the spot at the time of occurrence. The injuries suffered and noticed vide MLC (Ex.PW-14/DC) on her body at JPN hospital on 17.10.1987 at 09.05 P.M. confirms her presence at the spot. The MLC (Ex.PW14/DC) records that she was conscious and in a position to make statement. However, she did not lodge any complaint with the police against the complainant and his companions for causing acid burns to her. She herself did not examine any witness to prove as to how and under what circumstances, she got burn injuries and who was the assailant. She rather took inconsistent defence that injuries to the complainant and his associates were caused in exercise of their private defence to protect their property. She, however, did not examine any witness to establish that the complainant and his associates were aggressors and right of private defence was exercised strictly in accordance with the provisions enshrined in the Code. No cross case was instituted against the complainant party.