BABU LAL Vs. STATE OF UP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by appellant/complainant Babu Lal against the judgment and order dated 10.02.1993 passed by Munsif Magistrate, Rishikesh District Dehradun whereby respondents Sharvan Kumar and Shivdhar have been acquitted for the charges punishable under section 326 read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "I.P.C.").

(2.) The facts in brief are that appellant/complainant Babu Lal filed a criminal complaint in the court of Munsif Magistrate, Rishikesh District Dehradun on 07.07.1989 against respondents Sharvan Kumar and Shivdhar by which it is submitted that Rambhilor father of the appellant was working in the Irrigation Department and was residing in quarter no. D-57 Bairaj Colony, Rishikesh and both the respondents were also residing in the adjoining quarters. Respondents were having grudge with the father of the complainant as he advised the respondents with regard to the visit of antisocial elements in the house of Sharvan Kumar. Even five months prior to the present occurrence, both the accused/respondents had come with the intention to kill my father but he was saved with the intervention of the neighbours. The accused however, threatened his father with dire consequences. During the night intervening 29/30.04.1989 at about 1.30 a.m. Babu Lal complainant was sleeping on the roof and his father Rambhilor (PW-2) was sleeping in the courtyard of his house. Accused/respondents Sharvan Kumar and Shivdhar threw the acid on the face and head of his father. On hearing the shrieks of his father, complainant came and saw that Sharvan Kumar and Shivdhar were running towards their houses. Condition of his father was serious therefore, complainant removed him to Civil Hospital. While lifting his father, complainant had also received burn injuries (Acid burn) on his hand and chest. Thereafter he reached Police Station, Rishikesh to report the matter but he was informed that the report could be lodged at Police Station, I.D.P.L. and thereafter he got the report scribed by Ramarav and submitted the same in the police station I.D.P.L. He further averred that complainant is an illiterate person and he does not know how to read and write, he only knows how to put his signature. Later on he came to know that Ramarav had connived with the accused persons, thus he did not mention the correct facts in the report. According to the complainant, he submitted the report alongwith medico-legal report of his father in the police station, I.D.P.L. He further averred that Ramarav in connivance with the accused persons got the signature of the complainant on the some plain papers. Thereafter complainant came to know that accused persons were released by the police. Accused/respondents did not give any expenses for the treatment of his father. Though accused/respondents had promised in the presence of Ramarav to reimburse the expenses incurred for the treatment of his father to him.

(3.) According to the complainant, right eye of his father was totally damaged. He also received grievous serious injuries on the head. He also stated that both the accused with conspiracy had caused such injuries to his father, which could result in his death and he would not interfere in their antisocial activities. It is thus, pleaded that accused/respondents be convicted under sections 326/307/34 and 120-B IPC.