RAJESH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein has been arrayed as the sole accused in the instant Crime No.385/2019 of Enathu Police Station, Pathanamthitta, registered for offences punishable under Secs.326B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, on the basis of the First Information Statement given by the lady de facto complainant on 14.03.2019 at about 7.10 a.m., in respect of the alleged incidents which happened on the previous day (13.03.2019) at about 8.15 p.m. The petitioner had surrendered in this case and was remanded to custody on 21.10.2019 and has been under detention since then.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that the abovesaid allegations are false and baseless and further that the case now projected by the Investigating Agency in Annexure-A4 remand report dated 21.10.2019 is substantially a different one from the one initially projected by none other than the lady de facto complainant, who was the 1st informant in her Anneure-A1 FI Statement given on 14.03.2019. Further, in Annexure-A1 FIR, the story of the prosecution is that two accused persons are involved and whereas the present case now projected in Annexure-A4 remand report now proceeds on an entirely different story and premise, as if the petitioner is a sole accused and even the provision as per Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code has been deleted. It is now apprised to this Court by the learned Public Prosecutor that the final report/charge sheet has also been filed in this case on 25.10.2019, wherein the petitioner has been arrayed as the sole accused for the offences punishable under Sec.326B of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) The brief of the prosecution case as projected in Annexure-A1 FIR and FIS is that the lady de facto complainant aged 39 years in this case is a widow, who is now living with her father in her parental home and that she is a working woman and that as usual after work, she had walked to her house on 13.03.2019 evening and at about 8 p.m., two persons had come in a motor cycle from behind and one of them had thrown a liquid at her body which she felt to be acidic in nature because of her sensory perception and that she was taken to the hospital on the same day. Further it is also stated by the lady victim in her Annexure-A1 FI Statement that the petitioner is living in her immediate neighbourhood and previously he had some quarrel with her father in his openly using abusive words in front of their residence and that he is not having a good relationship with him and that she suspects that it must have the petitioner, who would have come in the motor cycle to throw the said liquid at her. Now the case projected in Annexure-A4 remand report is that on 13.03.2019 at about 8.15 p.m., when she was on her way to her house after work, the petitioner/accused had come from behind and had thrown the abovesaid liquid, which could be acidic and there is no mention about the motor cycle story or about the 2nd accused in the instant case and it appears that both of the remand report as well as the final report, the name of the 2nd accused has been deleted and the provision as per Sec.34 of the IPC to rope him into common intention has also been deleted.