AWADHESH RAY @ BABUA PATHAK Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.11.2000 and 29.11.2000 passed in Sessions Trial No. 102 of 1998, whereby and whereunder the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad held the appellant guilty under Section 324 IPC and convicted and sentenced him to undergo RI for three years.

(2.) THE brief facts leading to this appeal are that the informant Sangeeta Kumari, PW 15, daughter of Jawahar Lal Tiwari, PW 12 was standing at about 9.30 AM at Page 2638 the bus stop and talking with her friend Sarita Kumari, PW 1 in the morning of 11.11.1997 in Loyabad, district Dhanbad, while she saw the appellant coming towards her on a scooter. It is further stated that the appellant stopped the vehicle near the informant and took out a small dibba and poured the acid on her head and face. The informant getting acid burn injury started crying. According to the informant the appellant stated that he has poured the acid on her face because she did not agree to his demands. The informant was taken to hospital by PW 3, Md. Aslam with the help of a scooter driver immediately, where she was admitted. The reason behind pouring of acid was that the appellant was in possession of photo of the informant and he was blackmailing her and when she did not accede to his demands, she has been subjected to this incidence. The statement of the informant was recorded by Loyabad police in the hospital at about 3 PM. On the basis of which Loyabad P.S.case No. 121/1997 was registered under Sections 324, 326, 307 IPC. The police investigated the case and finally submitted chargesheet against the appellant under the aforesaid sections.

(3.) THE present appeal has been filed on the ground that the learned trial court has committed errors on record and did not consider the contradictions available in the evidence of the witnesses. It is further asserted that the appellant was the Director of a Coaching Institute of which the father of the informant was the Secretary. According to the counsel for the appellant, there was a dispute between the family of the appellant and the informant regarding management of the institute for which this false case has been lodged. It is also submitted that the informant has got illegal relation with one Niraj and she has got loose character. According to this memo of appeal, there was no eye witness of the occurrence and the appellant has already remained in custody from November, 1997 till the date of judgment November, 2000 and suffered sufficiently and as such the appeal may be allowed.