# Vimal Kumar Maurya (In Jail) v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2023) 1 ILRA 754
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-01-06
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 4053 of 2014
- **Bench:** Pritinker Diwaker, Nalin Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vimal-kumar-maurya-in-jail-v-state-of-u-p-49677
- **Pages:** 17

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Section 326-A - Allegation of throwing
the acid (tejab) and deforming the face -
Medical evidence - It's corroborative
values - Held, medical evidence has
always a great corroborative value as it
proves not only the injuries which are said
to be caused in the incident, but also the
manner
alleged.
The
case
of
the
prosecution, as the one we have in hand,
is mandatorily to be corroborated by way
of medical evidence, which is always very
crucial
for
the
prosecution
also
for
corroboration of its case and that is why
the evidentiary value of a medical witness
can never be ignored. (Para 38)
B. Criminal Law - Contradiction in the
St.ment
of
injured-victim
during
Examination-in-chief
and
cross
examination regarding the pot used for
throwing the acid - Relevancy - Held, no
doubt the evidence is not very much
certain as to the acid was thrown by lota
or glass, but in our view, this fact does not
affect the prosecution case adversely.
Both the injured were lying on cot and in
the light of lantern, as they deposed, they
had seen the incident of throwing the
acid. The relevant is that acid was thrown.
(Para 44 and 45)
C. Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Section 326-A - Life imprisonment -
Appeal against conviction and Sentence -
Contradiction in the St.ment u/s 161
Cr.P.C. - Relevance - Non-disclosure and
non-identification of the accused by the
victim, when he (accused) was with her
(victim) during treatment - Effect - Held,
the prosecution has utterly failed to
explain as to under what circumstances,
the injured P.W.2 permitted the convictappellant to accompany her after the
incident and even the guilt of the
appellant was disclosed by her to the
police after a long time - The prosecution
has
miserably
failed
to
explain
the
contradictions occurred in the St.ments
given by P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 under Section
161 Cr.P.C. - Further held, contradictions
and unnatural St.ments of these witnesses
make the whole prosecution story highly
doubtful. (Para 50, 53 and 56)
Appeal allowed (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-

## Text

_Characters 0–39,994 of 57,607. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39994 for what follows._

754 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
doing of an act by the other by "goading"
or
"urging
forward". The dictionary
meaning of the word "goad" is "a thing that
stimulates someone into action; provoke to
action or reaction" (see Concise Oxford
English Dictionary); "to keep irritating or
annoying somebody until he reacts" (see
Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, 7th
Edn.)."

23. From the aforesaid discussions, it
is evident that the deceased perceived
harassment by the applicant as he was
threatened to see in future or false
implication under Section 376 IPC. There
is nothing on record to suggest any mensrea for instigating or abetting the suicide by
the applicant. The suicide-note, as has been
extracted herein above, even does not
remotely suggest that the accused-applicant
had any intention to aid, instigate or abate
the deceased to commit suicide. Making
threat to the deceased, asking him to see in
future or implication in criminal case of
IPC by itself would not constitute the
offence of abetment to commit suicide.
There is no evidence collected by the
Investigating Officer to suggest that the
applicant intended by such act to instigate
the deceased to commit suicide. This Court
is of the view that all ingredients of
instigation of abetment to commit suicide
are completely absent in the material
collected during the course of investigation
and, therefore, it cannot be said that the
accused-applicant
has
committed
any
offence under Section 306 IPC. There is no
offending action proximate to the time of
occurrence on the part of the applicant,
which would have led or compelled the
deceased to commit suicide. Perceived of
harassment by the deceased in the hands of
the accused-applicant cannot be a ground
for invoking the offence under Section 306
IPC as it cannot be said that the accusedapplicant has abetted the commission of
suicide by playing any active role or by an
act of instigation or doing certain act to
facilitate commission of suicide. While
framing the charge, Trial Court has not
appreciated the judgment cited in the body
of impugned order in right perspective and
it misinterpreted the judgment.

24. In the light of facts and
circumstances
of
the
present
case,
allegation made against the applicant,
evidence collected by prosecution and the
aforesaid discussions, this Court is of the
view that the application is liable to be
allowed. Impugned order dated 08.10.2021,
and the further proceedings thereof against
the applicant are quashed. Applicant is
discharged from the offence alleged.

25. Application stands disposed of in
the above terms. Order accordingly.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 754
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.01.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRITINKER DIWAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 4053 of 2014

Vimal Kumar Maurya ...Appellant (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, Sri Chandra Bhan
Dubey, Sri P.R. Maurya, Sri Anil Kumar
Dubey, Anjali Singh, Sri Shashank Maurya

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A., Sri Ishwar Chandra Srivastava, Sri
Kamal Srivastava, Sri Kaushalendra
1 All. Vimal Kumar Maurya Vs. State of U.P.
755
A. Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Section 326-A - Allegation of throwing
the acid (tejab) and deforming the face -
Medical evidence - It's corroborative
values - Held, medical evidence has
always a great corroborative value as it
proves not only the injuries which are said
to be caused in the incident, but also the
manner
alleged.
The
case
of
the
prosecution, as the one we have in hand,
is mandatorily to be corroborated by way
of medical evidence, which is always very
crucial
for
the
prosecution
also
for
corroboration of its case and that is why
the evidentiary value of a medical witness
can never be ignored. (Para 38)
B. Criminal Law - Contradiction in the
St.ment
of
injured-victim
during
Examination-in-chief
and
cross
examination regarding the pot used for
throwing the acid - Relevancy - Held, no
doubt the evidence is not very much
certain as to the acid was thrown by lota
or glass, but in our view, this fact does not
affect the prosecution case adversely.
Both the injured were lying on cot and in
the light of lantern, as they deposed, they
had seen the incident of throwing the
acid. The relevant is that acid was thrown.
(Para 44 and 45)
C. Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Section 326-A - Life imprisonment -
Appeal against conviction and Sentence -
Contradiction in the St.ment u/s 161
Cr.P.C. - Relevance - Non-disclosure and
non-identification of the accused by the
victim, when he (accused) was with her
(victim) during treatment - Effect - Held,
the prosecution has utterly failed to
explain as to under what circumstances,
the injured P.W.2 permitted the convictappellant to accompany her after the
incident and even the guilt of the
appellant was disclosed by her to the
police after a long time - The prosecution
has
miserably
failed
to
explain
the
contradictions occurred in the St.ments
given by P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 under Section
161 Cr.P.C. - Further held, contradictions
and unnatural St.ments of these witnesses
make the whole prosecution story highly
doubtful. (Para 50, 53 and 56)
Appeal allowed (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-
1. St. of Har. Vs Krishan; A.I.R. 2017 SC 3125
2. Laxman Singh Vs St. of Bihar; (2021) 9 SCC
191
3. Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary & anr. Vs St.
Of Mah.; (2000) 8 SCC 457
4. Khema alias Khem Chandra etc. Vs St. of
U.P.; 2022 SCC OnLine SC 991
5. Sheila Sebastian Vs R. Jawaharaj; 2018 (5)
Supreme 239
6. Anter Singh Vs St. of Raj.; A.I.R. 2004 SC
2865
7. Mousam Singha Roy Vs St. of W. B.; 2003 12
SCC 377
8. Suchand Pal Vs Phani Pal; 2004 SCC (Cri) 220

(Delivered by Hon'ble Nalin Kumar
Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla,
learned counsel for the appellant and Sri
Amit Sinha, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The Court of Additional Sessions
Judge, Court No.4, Jaunpur convicted the
appellant Vimal Kumar Maurya under
Section 326-A IPC in Sessions Trial
No.507 of 2013 arising out of Crime
No.846 of 2013, Police Station Badlapur,
District Jaunpur and sentenced him for life
imprisonment and fine of Rs.1 lakh with
default sentence vide judgment and order
dated 22.09.2014, feeling aggrieved of
which the present criminal appeal has been
filed.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is as
under.
756 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

On 07.11.2013 at about 12:00 at
night when the informant and her family
members were sleeping in their house and
injured Champa Devi, the mother-in-law
and Madhuri, the sister-in-law (nand) of the
informant were also sleeping in a room
situated in the Usahra (baramda) in front of
the window, some unknown person threw
acid (tejab) from the window and caused
grievous hurt and deformity on their faces.
The
injured
ladies
were
taken
to
Government Hospital, but they were
referred to Janpur and subsequently to
Varanasi for further treatment.

4. First information report was lodged
on the basis of written report of the
informant on 08.11.2013 at 6:20 A.M. and
investigation started in pursuance of the
said first information report.

5. The investigating officer recorded
the statement of the injured witnesses,
informant and other witnesses, inspected
the place of occurrence and prepared site
plan. He also seized acid burnt pillow,
towel, dupatta and lantern from the place of
occurrence and memo was prepared.
During investigation, the name of present
convict-appellant Vimal Kumar Maurya
came into light and he was arrested by the
police. Two other accused persons Sonu @
Santosh Kumar and Ved Prakash Yadav
were also arrested, but subsequently final
report was submitted in their favour. On the
pointing out of present convict-appellant,
the investigating officer also seized the
pieces of bottle wherein acid was kept, the
rest of the acid and acid stained soil and
also a tube of gum and seizure memos were
prepared. One steel glass was
also
recovered on the pointing out of the
convict-appellant.
Photographs
of
the
injured Madhuri and mobile phone of the
accused alongwith other mobile phones
given by the accused to the victim were
also recovered and seizure memos were
prepared.

6. After completing the investigation,
charge-sheet was submitted against the
present convict-appellant.

7. The matter, being exclusively
triable
by
the
Sessions
Court,
was
committed to the Court of Sessions for
trial.

8. Charge under Section 326-A IPC
was framed on 06.11.2014. The convictappellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to
be tried.

9. To bring home the charge, the
prosecution relied upon the oral as well as
documentary evidence.

10. In oral evidence, P.W.1 Suman
Devi, the informant, P.W.2 Madhuri, the
injured, P.W.3 Champa Devi, the injured,
P.W.4
Dr.
Ratnesh
Dwivedi,
P.W.5
Prakash Chand Rao, Chief Pharmacist,
P.W.6 Dr. Saif Hussain Khan, P.W.7
Samar Bahadur Yadav, the scribe, P.W.8
Dr. Mohd. Rafeeq, P.W.9 S.I. Acchey Lal,
the investigating officer and P.W.10 H.M.
Amar Nath Kushwaha, scribe of first
information report were examined.

11. In documentary evidence, written
report
Ex.Ka.-1,
Medical
Certificates
Ex.Ka.-2 and Ka.-3, B.H.T. of injured
Madhuri Ex.Ka.-4, Injury Report of injured
Madhuri Ex.Ka.-5, Site Plan Ex.Ka.-6,
Seizure Memo of Pillow, Towel and
Dupatta Ex.Ka.-7, Seizure Memo of
Lantern Ex.Ka.-8, Seizure Memo of Pieces
of Acid Bottle & acid stained Soil Ex.Ka.-
9, Seizure Memo of Gum Tube Ex.Ka.-10,
Seizure Memo of Steel Glass Ex.Ka.-11,
1 All. Vimal Kumar Maurya Vs. State of U.P.
757
Seizure Memo of Mobile Phone Ex.Ka.-12
& 13, Seizure Memo of Four Photographs
of injured Madhuri Ex.Ka.-14, Chargesheet Ex.Ka.-15, Chik F.I.R. Ex.Ka.-16 and
G.D. Ex.Ka.-17 have been proved.

12. On the basis of oral and
documentary evidence and after hearing the
parties at length and also analysing the
evidence of the defence, vide judgment and
order dated 22.09.2014, the learned trial
court recorded the conviction of the
accused-appellant under Section 326-A of
IPC and sentenced him as here-in-above
mentioned.

13. Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned
counsel appearing for the appellant has
vehemently submitted that the conviction
of the appellant is bad in the eyes of law
and the learned trial court, without
analyzing the evidence on record in an
illegal and improper manner, has recorded
the conviction of the appellant, which is not
sustainable in the eyes of law. There was
no evidence on record to prove that it was
the appellant who was the author of the
crime. He has not been identified on spot
and all the recoveries relating to the
incident
are
false
and
fabricated.
Prosecution case does not find support
from the medical evidence. Even the
injured witnesses are incapable to prove the
prosecution case, as their evidence is shaky
and full of contradictions. The place of
occurrence is not defined and investigation
is bitterly faulty. It is a case of false
implication of the appellant and on the
basis of entire evidence on record, no guilt
against the appellant is established and
proved. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submitted that the learned lower
court has neglected the defence evidence in
an arbitrary manner. The findings recorded
by the trial court in the impugned judgment
and order are adverse to law and perverse
warranting interference by the Appellate
Court. Motive of the offence is also not
proved.

14. On the other hand, Sri Amit
Sinha, learned A.G.A. submitted that the
learned trial court has made a proper and
legal analysis of the evidence on record and
the appellant has been rightly convicted.
There is no illegality or infirmity in the
impugned judgment and as such the same
does not warrant any interference by the
Appellate Court and the appeal is liable to
be dismissed.

15.

We
have
considered
the
arguments advanced by the learned counsel
appearing for the parties and perused the
record.

16. The arguments advanced by the
parties take us through the statement of the
prosecution witnesses and also the defence
witnesses and at the same time through the
documentary evidence adduced by the
parties.

17. P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 are the
witnesses of fact.

18. P.W.1 is the informant. However,
she is not the eyewitness of the incident. In
her statement, she has stated that on the
shrieks of two injured, her mother-in-law
Champa Devi and sister-in-law (nand)
Madhuri, she reached the spot and found
that acid (tejab) was thrown on the faces of
the two injured, who were crying for pain.
They were taken to the hospital. The
written report was written on her dictation
by Samar Bahadur Yadav, Gram Pradhan
and read over to her and then he made a
signature over it. She visited the hospital
after four days of the occurrence where
758 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
injured Madhuri told her that the appellant
used to tease her and she had slapped him.
She has also explained that the engagement
of her Nand (injured Madhuri) was to take
place one day after the incident, but 2 - 3
days before, the appellant had threatened
her to cause deformity to her face in case
she does not marry him. In her crossexamination, she had made a statement that
when Renu Devi and she herself reached
the place of incident, they found both the
injured crying that something has been
thrown on their faces. She also stated that
she did not name anyone before the
investigating officer as to who had thrown
the acid. She has further stated that the
name of the accused was also not told to
her by her sister-in-law, rather she had told
it to her husband, which was overheard by
her in the hospital. She had also made a
contradictory statement as to whether the
injured Madhuri had ever told her that the
convict-appellant used to tease her.

19. P.W.2 Madhuri Prajapati is the
injured
of
the
case,
who,
in
her
examination-in-chief,
corroborating
the
prosecution version, has stated that the
convict-appellant was willing to find her
favour and proposed her for marriage, to
which she denied. Her engagement was to
take place on 08.11.2013 and 2 - 4 days
before it, the accused had threatened her to
cause deformity to her face and to ruin her
if she denies to marry with him. At the time
of the incident, she had gone to bed
alongwith her mother in Usahra (baramda)
where lantern was burning and one door of
the window was broken. The accused
moved the curtain of the window and
peeped inside, then she recognized him, but
he threw acid by some white metal lota (a
small container for water round in shape,
usually of brass or copper) whereby she
and her mother got injured and they began
shouting. The family members came over
there and they were sent to hospital at
Badlapur and from there to District
Hospital, Jaunpur and subsequently to
Pragya Hospital, Varanasi where she was
admitted for 13 days. On 28.11.2013, her
statement was recorded by the investigating
officer. The burn signs are still present over
her face. This witness has identified the
convict-appellant as the author of the crime
before the court during the course of her
deposition and has stated that in the light of
lantern, she had identified him. In her
cross-examination, she has stated that her
statement was recorded on 28.11.2013 by
the investigating officer only once and no
statement was recorded on 08.11.2013. She
has also stated that tejab was thrown by
lota and she had stated before the
investigating officer that the acid was
thrown by a white metal pot. She had made
a significant statement further in her crossexamination that her sister Renu or sisterin-law (Bhabhi) Suman did not ask her as
to who had thrown the acid nor she told
anything about it because she was not in a
position to speak. She has also explained
that the convict-appellant remained with
her during her treatment right from her
house to Varanasi and during that period,
she did not tell anyone as to who had
thrown the acid.

20. P.W.3 Champa Devi is also the
injured and the mother of other injured
Madhuri. She, in her examination-in-chief,
has stated that in the night of the incident at
about 12:00, the convict-appellant threw
acid over her and her daughter through the
window and they got injuries over their
faces. Lantern was burning in the room, in
the light of which she had seen the convictappellant throwing the acid by a glass. She
had identified the accused before the court
during her deposition and has stated that
1 All. Vimal Kumar Maurya Vs. State of U.P.
759
she does not know as to why the acid was
thrown by the accused. In her crossexamination, she has stated that she
remained hospitalized at Varanasi for about
12 - 13 days alongwith Madhuri. She had
denied
her
statement
given
to
the
investigating officer that Sonu Pal and Ved
Prakash Yadav had caused deformity to her
daughter by throwing acid over her face.
She
has
made
some
contradictory
statements in her cross-examination as to
by which pot the acid was thrown. One
more significant statement has been made
by this witness that at the time of the
incident, she and her daughter had shouted
that Vimal Kumar is fleeing away after
throwing acid over them, which was heard
by her family members, her daughter Renu
and her daughter-in-law Suman also.

21. P.W.4 to P.W.10 are the formal
witness.

22. P.W.4 Dr. Ratnesh Dwivedi had
treated both the injured at Pragya Hospital,
Varanasi. In his examination-in-chief, he
has stated that the acid injury was found on
the face, neck and right hand of both the
injured ladies, however, Champa Devi had
got acid injury over her face only. They
were treated by Dr. S.J. Singh. He has
proved the medical certificates of both the
injured ladies as Ex.Ka.2 & 3. However, in
his cross-examination, he has admitted that
Ex.Ka.2 & 3 are not the injury reports
rather they are medical certificates having
caption of "Not for medico legal purpose".
No signature or thumb impression of either
of the injured ladies finds place over the
aforesaid certificates. Also no reference has
been mentioned in the aforesaid certificates
and it has also not been mentioned at to by
whom they were brought. The description
of acid burn injuries are also not mentioned
in Ex.Ka.-2 & 3.

23. P.W.5 Prakash Chand Rao has
produced
B.H.T.
relating
to
injured
Madhuri of District Hospital, Jaunpur
before the court, which has been prepared
on 08.11.2013 at 3:00 A.M. by E.M.O. Dr.
Saif Hussain Khan.

24. P.W.6 Dr. Saif Hussain Khan,
E.M.O., District Hospital, Jaunpur has
stated that he had treated the injured
Madhuri, who was referred from C.H.C.,
Badlapur having burn injuries over her face
and neck. Her general condition was not
very good and she was referred at 3:45
A.M. for higher centre. The B.H.T. relating
to injured Madhuri has been proved as
Ex.Ka.-4 by this witness. However, in his
cross-examination, he has admitted that he
has not prepared any medical prescription
or supplementary injury report of injured
Madhuri rather she was not medically
examined in the Sadar Hospital, Jaunpur.
He is a general surgeon and not an expert
of acid burn and is unable to explain as to
which acid was used in the occurrence.

25. P.W.7 Samar Bahadur Yadav is
the scribe, who has narrated in his
examination-in-chief that 08.11.2013, in
the morning, when he got information of
the incident, he reached the house of the
injured. This witness is the husband of
Gram Pradhan, Machhli. He has stated that
on the dictation of the informant, he had
written the tehreer, which was read over to
the informant. He has identified his
signature over Ex.Ka.-1 and also over
seizure memo of towel and dupatta.

26. P.W.8 Dr. Mohd. Rafeeq had
treated
injured
Madhuri
at
C.H.C.,
Badlapur. He has stated that on 08.11.2013
at 1:40 A.M., he medically examined
injured Madhuri and found signs of burn
and blisters over her face and neck. Her
760 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
general condition was not very good. He
gave first aid to her. The injuries appear to
be acid burn injuries and fresh. The
accidental medical
register has been
produced by this witness before the court
and was proved as Ex.Ka.-5. According to
this witness, after 30 - 40 minutes, the
injured was referred to District Hospital,
Jaunpur for better treatment. In his crossexamination, he has admitted that blisters
were present only over the whole face of
the injured and not over the neck. He has
also admitted that he did not advice for the
x-ray and no supplementary report was
prepared by him and he is not sure whether
the injuries were acid burn injuries or not.

27. P.W.9 S.I. Acchey Lal is the
investigating officer of the case, who has
proved the proceedings of the investigation
and the site plan Ex.Ka.-6 and seizure
memos Ex.Ka.-7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and
14. In his cross-examination, he has
admitted some omissions in the preparation
of the site plan. However, no case property
has been produced before this witness. He
has also admitted that the bottle, acid, acid
stained soil and also the acid burnt clothes,
pillow and dupatta were not sent to C.F.L.
Contrary to the vicitm Madhuri, this
witness has deposed that her statement was
recorded on 08.11.2013 wherein she had
stated that Sonu @ Santosh Pal and Ved
Prakash Yadav had thrown acid over her.
Another injured Champa Devi, the mother
of
the
victim
Madhuri
had
also
corroborated the aforesaid statement of
injured Madhuri and accordingly Sonu @
Santosh Pal and Ved Prakash Yadav both
were sent to jail. He has also admitted that
he made no investigation on the point as to
in whose name the SIM of the mobile
phone, collected by him, was allotted. He
has also stated that the acid was thrown by
a glass and not by lota and no lota as such
was recovered by him. Further he has
stated that injured Champa Devi in her
statement recorded on 08.11.2013 had also
named Sonu @ Santosh Pal and Ved
Prakash Yadav as the authors of the crime.
This witness has been recalled for reexamination under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
wherein he has proved the case properties
seized by him during the course of
investigation as Material Ex.-1 to 8. He has
also proved G.D. Ex.Ka.-15. He has also
stated that no case property was ever
identified by the victim.

28. P.W.10 H.M. Amar Nath
Kushwaha is the scribe of the F.I.R., who
had proved Chik F.I.R. Ex.Ka.-16 and G.D.
Ex.Ka.-17 and has stated that on the basis
of written report of the informant Suman
Devi, the F.I.R. was lodged and prepared
by him in his own handwriting and
signature and the G.D. of the case as well.

29. In his statement under Section 313
Cr.P.C., when incriminating evidence and
circumstances were put to the accused, he
has taken a plea of false implication and
has stated that the case was registered
against him due to enmity and also pleaded
for defence evidence.

30. A written submission has also
been made by the accused stating therein
that the accused was arrested without any
cogent and reliable evidence and the two
accused persons Sonu @ Santosh Pal and
Ved Prakash Yadav, whose name came into
light during the course of investigation
particularly on the basis of the statement of
both the injured ladies, were not chargesheeted by the investigating officer rather a
final report was submitted favouring them.
No injured mentioned the name of the
accused before the police and his name also
does not find place in the F.I.R. itself. He
1 All. Vimal Kumar Maurya Vs. State of U.P.
761
was not identified at the time of occurrence
and the prosecution case is not supported
by the medical evidence.

31. D.W.1 Prem Chand Gupta and
D.W.2 Rajendra Singh Sengar have been
examined as defence witnesses.

32. D.W.1 Prem Chand Gupta is
working as Incharge Principal in Sindhi
Laskar Primary School, Badlapur, Jaunpur
and he has stated that the convict-appellant
Vimal Kumar Maurya had been working as
Shiksha
Mitra
in
his
school.
On
12.11.2013, when he was present at the
school, the police took him for inquiry at
11:30 A.M. but he did not inform to higher
authorities. He has proved the original log
book of the school as Ex.Kha.-1 and also
the Attendance Register as Ex.Kha.-2.

33. D.W.2 Rajendra Singh Sengar,
Additional City Magistrate-I, Varanasi has
stated that on 11.11.2013, he was working
as S.D.M., Pindra and had recorded the
statement of injured Madhuri in Pragya
Hospital, Harhua, Varanasi at about 7:00
P.M. The said statement has been proved as
Ex.Kha.-3 by this witness and he has made
categorical statement that the injured
Madhuri did not name any accused who
had thrown acid over her in her statement
given to him. At the time of statement, Dr.
V.K. Dubey had executed a certificate that
the injured is fully conscious and in fit
mental state at the time of the recording of
the statement.

34. On the basis of the aforesaid
evidence, the learned trial court passed the
judgment and order of conviction against
the appellant.

35. The submissions made by the
learned counsel for the appellant are to be
meet out on the basis of evidence on
record.

36. The first objection relates to the
fixation of place of occurrence. It has been
argued that the place of occurrence in this
case is not certain. There is no definite
evidence on the point as to what was the
specific place where both the injured were
sleeping. A perusal of the impugned
judgment shows that this issue has been
discussed by the learned trial court also.
The court finds some minor contradictions
between the statement of the informant and
injured persons over this issue. The site
plan Ex.Ka.6 shows that at place ''A' both
the injured were sleeping. A window
marked with letter ''B' has been shown in
the western side of the place through which
the acid is said to be thrown. The statement
of P.W.9 shows that it was a room where
both the injured were sleeping. However,
P.W.1, the informant, has also stated that
Champa Devi and Madhuri were sleeping
in the room. P.W.2 Madhuri, the injured
states that she alongwith her mother was
lying in the Usahra. However, further in her
cross-examination, she states that she was
sleeping in a room and she has also
explained the width of that room. Further
she states that the incident happened in a
room which has a door in the northern side
and window in the western side. P.W.3 the
injured Champa Devi also states that "मैं ि
मेरी लड़की उसेिर ि ले कमरे में लेटे थे।" She has
further stated that she has a kaccha house
which is dilapidated and only usahra
(baramda) is remaining.

37. We have to keep in mind that the
present is the case wherein the incident has
occurred in a village. In the villages, the
usahra is a room type place surrounded by
walls and normally having no fix door and
in
the
local
term
generally
usahra
762 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(baramda) in a village is taken as a room.
Hence, we find no contradiction on this
point as to whether the injured ladies were
sleeping in a room or usahra. In the site
plan Ex.Ka.-6, the place of occurrence has
been marked by letter ''A', which has a
window in the western side and exit in the
northern side which corroborates the
version of the prosecution witnesses of fact.
In Ex.Ka.-6, it has also been shown that the
informant was sleeping at place ''C', which
is the place just adjacent to that where the
injured ladies were sleeping and that is why
first of all the informant reached the place
of incident after hearing the shrieks of the
injured
ladies.
Hence,
we
find
no
discrepancy in the prosecution version so
far as the fixation of place of occurrence is
concerned.

38. The medical evidence adduced by
the prosecution has been vehemently
assailed by the learned counsel for the
appellant. We cannot ignore this fact that
the medical evidence has always a great
corroborative value as it proves not only
the injuries which are said to be caused in
the incident, but also the manner alleged.
The case of the prosecution, as the one we
have in hand, is mandatorily to be
corroborated by way of medical evidence,
which is always very crucial for the
prosecution also for corroboration of its
case and that is why the evidentiary value
of a medical witness can never be ignored.

39. The learned counsel for the
appellant has vehemently argued that
Ex.Ka.-2 and Ex.Ka.-3, the certificates
issued by Pragya Multi Speciality Hospital
& Research Centre Pvt. Ltd., Varanasi
cannot be termed as injury reports of the
injured ladies. A perusal of the contents of
the
aforesaid
documents
issued
on
11.11.2013 shows that they are only
certificates to the effect that the injured
persons were admitted in the hospital on
08.11.2013 as a case of homicidal acid burn
and they are still under treatment. Nowhere
it is mentioned therein as to what injuries
were found on the face and body of the
injured persons and what treatment was
going on. It was also argued that on the
basis of medical reports, it cannot be
certainly concluded that it was a acid burn
case.

40. The learned A.G.A., per contra,
has submitted that according to the
prosecution evidence both the injured
ladies were firstly took to C.H.C. Badlapur,
then Government Hospital, Jaunpur and
thereafter they were referred to District
Varanasi and the documents relating to that
duly proved in evidence, are available on
record.

41. We have gone through the
medical papers Ex.Ka.-4 & Ex.Ka.-5. Dr.
Mohd. Rafeeq, P.W.8 has proved the
medical report relating to C.H.C., Badlapur
and he has appeared before the court with
the original register and the medical report
of injured Madhuri has been proved by him
as Ex.Ka.-5 wherein the doctor has found
blister formed all over face and burnt skin
on face. The injury was kept under
observation and the injured was referred to
District Hospital, Jaunpur. The injury was
caused due to any burning material and was
fresh. The B.H.T. of District Hospital,
Jaunpur has been proved by P.W.4 Dr. Saif
Hussain Khan as Ex.Ka.-4, who has
affirmed this fact that the injured Madhuri
was brought to the District Hospital,
Jaunpur being referred from C.H.C.,
Badlapur and he had found acid burn
injuries on the face and neck of the injured.
She was admitted into the hospital and
treatment
was
started.
The
general
1 All. Vimal Kumar Maurya Vs. State of U.P.
763
condition of the patient was not very good
and she was referred to higher centre for
better treatment. Subsequently, she was
brought to Pragya Hospital, Varanasi. The
learned A.G.A. has contended that even if
the injury reports relating to Pragya
Hospital are not available on record, it
cannot be said that it was not an acid burn
case. P.W.4 has affirmed this fact that
injured Madhuri and Champa Devi both
were having acid burn injuries. They were
admitted into the hospital. This witness has
appeared before
the court alongwith
original papers regarding the treatment of
both the patients.

42. In the aforesaid circumstances, we
also find that the circumstances regarding
the treatment of acid burn injuries of both
the injured ladies are fully established.
Initially, the medical report of C.H.C.,
Badlapur and then of District Hospital,
Jaunpur clearly show that it was acid burn
case and the injuries were not normal. In
that way the prosecution version finds
corroboration from the medical evidence
also and it is established that the injuries
attributed on both the injured were caused
by acid.

43. The other circumstances relating
to the occurrence have been put into
question by the learned counsel for the
appellant. It has been argued that the
prosecution evidence is self-contradictory
on the point as to by which means acid was
thrown over the injured ladies. Both the
injured
ladies
in
their
respective
depositions
have
made
contradictory
statements in this regard and so is the case
of deposition of the investigating officer of
the case.

44. From the perusal of the evidence
of injured ladies P.W.2 and P.W.3 and also
of the investigating officer P.W.9, we find
some contradictory statements as to by
which pot the acid was thrown. It is
relevant to note that one steel glass has
been recovered on the pointing out of the
accused. Injured Madhuri P.W.2 in her
statement has stated that the acid was
thrown by any white metal pot, but further
in her cross-examination, she has stated
that the acid was thrown by a lota and the
accused fled away with that lota. However,
she has admitted that in her statement under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. she had not stated that
the acid was thrown by lota.

45. P.W.3, the other injured, in her
examination-in-chief, has stated that acid
was thrown by a glass. No doubt the
evidence is not very much certain as to the
acid was thrown by lota or glass, but in our
view, this fact does not affect the
prosecution case adversely. Both the
injured were lying on cot and in the light of
lantern, as they deposed, they had seen the
incident of throwing the acid. The relevant
is that acid was thrown. The acid bottle and
the pieces of bottle and acid stained soil as
well, have been seized by the investigating
officer from outside the window from
where
the
acid
was
thrown.
The
investigating officer has also seized acid
spotted pillow cover, towel, dupatta, kathri
and chadar. All the circumstances and
evidence show that indubitably it is an acid
burn case.

46. We are obliged to appreciate the
circumstances of the case and if we take the
oral and documentary evidence together,
we can picturize the prosecution story in
this way that the accused used to tease
injured Madhuri and he wanted to marry
with her, but she was not ready. The
accused being annoyed to this, had
threatened to cause deformity to her face
764 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and also to cause her grievous hurt. On the
next day of the incident, the engagement of
injured Madhuri was to take place. The
accused, prior to the occurrence, had given
mobile phone to the injured Madhuri to be
in touch with her. His threatening note was
also seized which was affixed by using
gum tube and that was also seized by the
investigating
officer.
Photographs
of
injured Madhuri were also recovered from
the possession of the accused. The learned
A.G.A. has vehemently argued that on the
basis of the aforesaid evidence and
circumstances, there is no shadow of doubt
that the offence was committed by the
accused only.

47. The learned counsel for the
appellant has vehemently argued that even
if it is assumed that both the injured ladies
sustained injuries by acid thrown over their
face and body, by no evidence it is proved
beyond doubt that it was the accused only
who was the author of the crime. To give
force to his argument, he has referred the
oral evidence of both the injured ladies and
also pressed to peruse the evidence of
P.W.9, the investigating officer and P.W.1,
the informant. It has been further submitted
that the conduct and deposition of P.W.2
injured Madhuri throws a shadow of doubt
upon the indulgence of the present
appellant into the matter, rather it goes to
show that the appellant is being falsely
implicated in this case. It has been further
argued that in fact, the injured ladies did
not identify any accused who threw acid
over them and subsequently by a deliberate
action, the appellant was implicated in this
matter.

48. The contentions raised by the
learned counsel for the appellant take us
through the testimonies of P.W.1, P.W.2,
P.W.3 and P.W.9.

49. P.W.1 is the first informant, who
came on spot upon hearing the shrieks of
both the injured ladies and found her
mother-in-law Champa Devi and sister-inlaw (Nand) Madhuri crying with pain, as
acid was thrown upon their faces. Both the
injured ladies were taken to the C.H.C.,
Badlapur and then to the District Hospital,
Jaunpur. She has further stated that four
days after the occurrence, she alongwith
her husband went to the hospital to see the
injured ladies where injured Madhuri told
her regarding the criminal intention of the
accused, who was slapped by Madhuri and
thereafter made a threatening to cause
deformity to her face in case she does not
marry him. Here we find from the perusal
of the F.I.R. that it has been lodged against
unknown person in the morning of
08.11.2013 i.e. the next morning of the
occurrence. P.W.1 has further stated that
when she reached the spot, she saw both
the injured ladies crying and saying that
something has been thrown on their faces.
It is significant to note here that P.W.1
nowhere states that on spot, just after the
incident, the injured ladies were naming the
accused as the assailant. It has been further
stated by P.W.1, contrary to her earlier
statement, that Madhuri did not tell her the
name of the accused, who had thrown the
acid, but she had told this fact to the
husband of P.W.1, which she overheard.

50. P.W.2 injured Madhuri in her
examination-in-chief has stated that the
door of the window was broken and after
sliding the curtain of the window, accused
Vimal Kumar Maurya peeped through the
window and she had identified him in the
light of the lantern. Accused Vimal threw
acid over her by some white metal pot. The
investigating officer had recorded her
statement on 28.11.2013 and she had
disclosed the facts regarding the incident.
1 All. Vimal Kumar Maurya Vs. State of U.P.
765
In the court also, she has identified the
accused and has clarified that in the light of
lantern, she has identified the accused. It is
pertinent to mention that P.W.2 has
categorically denied the fact that her
statement was ever recorded by the
investigating officer on 08.11.2013. She
was confronted to her statement given to
the
investigating
officer
as
to
the
involvement of Sonu @ Santosh Kumar
and Ved Prakash Yadav in the incident.
She has also denied that she had ever given
any statement to the investigating officer to
the effect that Sonu @ Santosh Kumar and
Ved Prakash Yadav had threatened her to
cause deformity to her face in case she does
not obey them. She has further stated that
in her statement given to the investigating
officer she had disclosed the fact that the
''accused persons' (मुक्तिम न) had threatened
to ruin her and to cause deformity to her
face if she does not marry them. The
learned A.G.A. has submitted that the
statements of P.W.2 are quite natural and
innocent. The lantern, in the light of which
she had identified the accused, has been
seized by the investigating officer and this
fact was also corroborated by another
injured P.W.3. P.W.2 has further given a
very relevant statement that "मुक्तिम दिमल
कुम र िि इल ज में मेरे स थ अस्पत ल में रि । िि
घर से लेकर बन रस तक मेरे स थ थ । उस अिदध में
मैंने दकसी से भी निीां बत य दक तेज ब दकसने फेंक
थ ।" This statement is very significant and
we are of the considered view that it hits
the very foundation of the prosecution case.
The occurrence happened on 07.11.2013
and injured Madhuri is said to be admitted
in the hospital till 19.11.2013. It is very
strange that if the accused was identified by
the injured Madhuri at the moment he was
throwing acid over her, then how and under
what circumstances, he accompanied her
right from her house to the hospital at
Varanasi throughout and during the whole
aforesaid period, injured Madhuri never
disclosed to anyone as to he was the person
who had thrown acid over her. This is not
the statement of P.W.2 anywhere that
during that total aforesaid period on
account of any threatening of the accused,
she had not disclosed his name to anyone.
Hence, her conduct is quite unnatural and
improbable.

51. The learned A.G.A. has failed to
explain as to why injured Madhuri stated
before the investigating officer that she was
threatened by ''accused persons' (मुक्तिम न)
if she had seen only one accused i.e.