A G BHAGWAT Vs. U T CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As is commonly said, even God loves things beautiful; as did the appellant. He, however, turned a monster on April 27, 1985, when he tried to disfigure or destroy the very object of his love by pouring sulphuric acid on Dr. (Mrs.) Neelam Marwaha, complainant, PW 18 causing extensive burns on her person. For this he had been held guilty under Section 307, IPC by the Sessions Court, Chandigarh, and has been awarded imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. He appeals.

(2.) The prosecution version as unrolled by Mrs. Marwaha in her initial statement to Mr. Darshan Kumar, ASI, within three hours of her receiving the injuries, is as follows :-

(3.) This led to the registration of a case against him vide F.I.R. No. 151 dated April 27, 1985 (Exhibit PA/3). Later at the trial, as PW 18 she elucidated her version by providing the necessary details of this crime and the crux of the same is that she joined the institute as a Senior Resident in the Department of Pathology about 3-1/2 years back and got married to Dr. R.K. Marwaha in April, 1979, who was working as a Lecturer in the Department of Pediatrics in the same institute. During the course of the time she came to know of the appellant as a Senior Member of the Faculty. She became aware of "his evil designs" towards her somewhere in April, 1984 when he started coming to her house uninvited and offered free lift in his car. Though she declined to accept these overtures or offers, yet on one occasion he not only used "abusive language" against her husband abut also told her that she should have been married to a person like him. On an evening in April, 1984, when he visited her house uninvited, she protested to him strongly and told him that all that was unbecoming of a senior member of the Faculty. At that very moment the appellant told her that by that time he had known women of 30 nationalities and knew very well that "initially they (women) refuse such overtures on the part of men but later on they succumb to the same". He did not stop at that. At a later stage he even tried to poison the mind of her husband against her by telling him that she was trying to entice him (appellant). He of course had this talk with her husband not in her presence. As matter of fact it was her husband who conveyed all this to her. One day he came to her laboratory where she was working and when she strongly protested and accused him of spreading false and vexatious insinuations against her, he told her that women who like her played with fire were bound to burn their fingers. He, however, subsequently apologised to her for the said misconduct and told her that 'he wanted friendship at any cost". In September/October, 1984, the appellant again started misbehaving towards her and on her objection to this, he even tried to poison the mind of the Head of her Department towards her.