Shobha v. State & Ors

NENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

¶1This is another unfortunate incident, where a jilted Apelant frustrated by the persistent denial of his overtures and ofer to mary t he Victim, led him in his frustration and dejection, to throw acid in the Victim, resulting 15 - 18% superficial and deep burn

¶2Criminal Apeal No. 909/2012 under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( hereinafter refere d to as Cr.P.C. ) has ben prefered by the Apelant, Depak @ Depu, seking seting aside of the Judgment dated 05.07.2012 and Order o n Sentence dated 10.07.2012 , pased by the Ld. A.S.J., Delhi , wherein the Apelant , Depak @ Depu was convicted under Sections 341/326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

(hereinafter refered to as "IPC ') and sentenced to five years' Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,0/ - , in default whereof to undergo two months' Simple Imprisonment .

3 of

¶3Criminal Revision Petition beari ng CRL.R.P. 46/2013 under Sections 397 / 401 read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has ben filed on behalf of the Petitioner /Victim Smt. Shobha, seking enhancement of the sentence of imprisonment of

five years awarded to Apelant/Respondent No. 4 vide O rder dated 10.07.2012.

¶4The Case of the Prosecution is that on 26.08.209 while the victim, PW - 2 , Ms. Shobha, aged about 16 years and was studying in Clas Xth, was going towards her Schol . A t about 07:45 AM , when she reached in front of 16/1, Geta Col ony, the Apelant, Depak along with one Sanjay Bajaj , who w ere known to her alo ng w ith one third a sociate , were present. On seing them, she got scared and started walking briskly. Then the Apelant, Depak stoped her and threw acid on her forehead fr om a stel glas. The acid trickled to her face and chest caus ing b urning sensation she started crying . The p ublic gathered on the spot and her mother, S mt. Mera reached the spot and tok her to the hospital.

¶5The information was given by PW - 4 Poj a vide D No. 14A, Polic e Station Geta Colony at about 09:43 AM that someone has thrown acid on her sister and she has ben taken to Dr. Hedgewar Hospital . The investigations were taken up by PW - 12, SI Suresh Rai, who reached the spot and noticed some liq uid at t w o place s on the road , which had a smel of acid. The Crime Team reached the spot and l ifted earth control and also tok the photographs of the spot.

¶6PW - 12 SI Suresh Rai then went to the Hospital and recorded the Statement of PW - 4 Poja , who while narating the entire incident , also stated that the Apelant, Depak had ben stalking her for last 7 - 9

4 of

months and was insisting to mary her . A bout 6 - 7 months prior to the inciden t, he had taken her to the Court by giving enticement and had made her sign atures on some documents. She had declined to mary Depak on acount of which, he threw acid on her face to deface her.

¶7FIR No. 212/20 0 9 dated 26.08.20 0 9 was lodged against the Apelant, Depak and Sanjay Bajaj. On Completion of investigations , the Charge - Shet under Section 341/326 /506/34 IPC , w as filed against both acused persons.

¶8T he C harges under Sectio n 341/326/506/34 IPC were framed on

05.07.2012 against the Apelant , Depak co - Acused, Sanjay Bajaj.

¶9The Prosecution examined 12 witneses in al. The most important witnes is PW - 2, Ms. Shobha, the Complainant , whose testimony was coroborated by PW - 4, Poja her younger sister , who was an eye witnes and was acompanying the victim at the time of acident .

10.

The testimony was furthe r suported by PW - 5, Ms. Mera, mother of the victim, who was working as a sweper at Dera Baba Karam Singh Gurudwara Schol Patparganj Road , Delhi, who coroborated that the Apelant used to stalk his daughter, Ms. Shobha and tease her and had ben pres urizing her to mary him or else. He threatened that if she did not agre to the proposal, he would kil her siblings and would disfigure her face. She further deposed that while they were taking Ms. Shobha to the Hospital, her son, PW - 6, Anu j made a cal at Number 10 and the Police m et them at the hospital. P W - 6, Anuj, brother of victim, PW - 2 Ms. Shobha also deposed on similar lines.

5 of

1.

PW - 12, S I Suresh Pal , the Investigating Oficer deposed about the investigation s caried out by him and filing of the Charge - Shet on completion of investigations.

12.

The Statement of the Apelant, Depak was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P . C . where he denied al the incriminating evidence and claimed that he had ben falsely implicated. He tok a defence that PW - 2 Ms. Shob ha

her mother PW - 5 Mera wanted to exploit them and demanded Rs.5,0,0/ - from him. On his refusal, a false Complaint has ben lodged against him. He aserted that he was sleping a t his home at the time of

incident.

13.

In suport of his defence, he exam ined DW - 1, Mr. Deva , who deposed that the victim was earlier residing in his house as a tenant, which he had got vacated due to her bad conduct. She was in love with him and wanted to mary him, but he refused. Then she shifted to C - 4, Gali No. 1, Rashid M arket, Geta Colony, Delhi. On 26.08.209, he had caled Depak but his mobile phone was switched of. He again caled him at 9:0 AM when he was informed about the incident and also about the registration of FIR. PW - 2, Shobha had demanded Rs.50,0/ - from the Apelant, Depak, to setle the mater.

14.

DW - 2, Raj Kumar, a neighbour of Apelant, Depak stated that he came to know about the acid atack from Apelant Depak, who told him that he was not involved in the incident.

15.

The Ld. Trial Court, after eval uation of the evidence , acquited the co - acused, Sanjay Bajaj but Apelant Depak was convicted . It was held that the Prosecution had sucesfuly proved that Apelant Depak had

6 of

wrongful ly confined the victim, PW 2 Ms. Shobha when she was on her way to Schol and had caused grievous injury by throwing acid on her face.

16.

The Apelant Depak vide O rder dated 05.07.2012 and was acordingly convicted under Section 341 IPC and Section 326 IPC . Vide

O rder on sentence dated 10.07.2012 , for the ofence punisha ble under Section 326 IPC , he was sentenced to undergo five years RI a fine of Rs. 2 ,0/ - in default SI for two months. For the ofence punishable under Section 341 IPC , the Apelant was sentenced to undergo RI for one month and a fine of Rs.50/ - , i n default to undergo SI for 15 days.

17.

Agrieved by the conviction and the Sentence, the present Apeal has ben prefered by the Apelant.

18.

The ground s of chalenge are that the Impugned Judgment is based on conjectures and surmises. The contradictions in t he Statement s of the Prosecution witneses, have not ben considered in the right earnest . PW - 2, Ms. Shobha had no where mention ed in her Complaint that P W - 4, Poja , her sister was acompanying her at the time of incident. It is aserted that PW - 4, Ms. Poja has ben introduced as a witnes only to falsely implicate the Apelant.

19.

It is further submited that acording to the testimony of PW - 4, Poja she was holding the hand of her sister, PW - 2 Ms. Shobha at the time of the incident. Had this ben the c ase, PW - 4 Ms. Poja would have also received injuries, which coroborates that she was never present at the spot.

20.

Furthermore, she deposed that the persons who threw the acid, were wearing helmet at the time of the aleged incident, which indicates that sh e did not se the asailants and was not in a position to identify them. It is

7 of

claimed that the Apelant has ben falsely implicated at the behest of her family members.

21.

Further, PW - 5, Mera had stated that she had taken the victim, PW - 2 Ms. Shoba to her house in an Auto and then to the Hospital. However, the statement of Auto driver has not ben recorded by the Investigating Oficer, to coroborate the version of PW - 5, Mera.

2.

PW - 2 Shobha has admited in her statement that her brother, PW - 6 Anuj is engag ed in the manufacturing of nail polish in which some chemicals are used and that acid botles remain present in the bathrom of their house for cleaning the toilet. It was sugested to her that in fact while she was trying to get the botle of acid from th e bathrom, it fel on her face causing the acid burns. It is claimed that it is not the Apelant, who had thrown the acid on the face of the Prosecutrix.

23.

It is aserted that t here are material contradictions in the Statement of PW - 2, Ms. Shobha and PW - 4, Ms. Poja about the cont ainer in which the aleged acid was being caried. Furthermore, PW - 2, Ms. Shobha and PW - 4, Ms. Poja nowhere stated that PW - 2 Ms. Shobha was first taken to her house and then to the Hospital , as has ben deposed by her mo t her, PW - 5 Ms. Mera and brother, PW - 6 Mr. Anuj.

24.

Furthermore , none of the Prosecution witneses deposed that PW - 6 Anuj had made a cal at Number 10. However, it is only PW - 5, Mother , who has so claimed , which again raises a doubt about the story of the Prosecut ion.

25.

The place of incident was a public place and acording to the Prosecution , public had gathered at the time of incident. However, no

8 of

public witnes has ben examined. Even the statement of the Shopkeper , who was present near the scene of incident , has not ben recorded.

26.

I n the end, it is claimed that the testimony of DW - 1 Deva , completely proves the defence of the Apelant that he has ben implicated falsely in this case , but his testimony has ben eroneously disc arded by the learned Trial Court.

27.

The Prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case and the Apelant is entitled to acquital.

28.

The State in its Status Report , had submited that as per the MLC, the victim , Shobha had sufered 1 5 to 18 % superficial dep burn injuries . The testimony of the Prosecution witneses has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. It is aserted that PW - 2 Ms. Shobha , was just 16 years old and the act of the Apelant Depak has left her with a trauma and mental agony for the res t of her life.

29.

It is thus , sub mited that the Apelant has ben rightly convicted and sentenced and there is no merit in the present Apeal.

CRL. R. P. 46/2013 (Revision Petition on behalf of the Petitioner/Victim seking enhancement of punishment awarded to the Apelant in CRL. A. 909/209)

30.

The victim , Shobha in her Revision Petition under Section 397/401 read with Section 482 Cr.PC, has sought enhancement of punishment

awarded to the Apelant/Respondent No.4 Depak in FIR No. 21/209 . It is submited that after the present Ap eal was prefered before this Court, the sentence was suspended and he was released on Bail vide Order dated

05.10.2012. However, son after he was enlarged on Bail, on 02.1.2012

9 of

while victim , Shobha was going to her sist Kunj, Delhi at about 0 1:15 PM, the Apelant , Depak had stoped the R ickshaw near Bank Enclave, near DA Market, Laxmi Nagar , Delhi a tacked her with a surgical blade resulting in grievous injur ies on her left chek , left wrist and right fot and ther eafter, he ran away from the spot . She

was taken to a local Nursing Home by the rickshaw puler from where she caled her mother, who then caled the PCR at Number 10. She was taken to Lok Na rayan Jaiprakash Hosp ital, New Delhi in P CR van and was admi ted in the Hospital. She was given treatment and her MLC was prepared.

31.

The v ictim /Shobha then made an Aplication for cancelation of Bail of the Apelant, who was arested and another FIR No. 8 /2012 dated

02.1.2012 under Section 326/34 1 IPC, was reg istered at Police Station

Shakarpur.

32.

The victim , Ms. Shobha has s ought the enhancement of sentence on ground that the A pelant , Depak tok advantage of liberty granted vide Bail Order dated 05.10.2012 and comited another ofence whereof

grievous i njur ies was caused to her , which reflects his intention , motive and revengeful atitude, which does not warant any s ympathy. His conduct has grosly shocked the conscience of the public. He has displayed actions indicating that he is totaly unfit to be b rought back into the mainstream society and is incapable of being re formed. He is a constant threat to her life and liberty and deserves the harshest punishment prescribed under the law.

3.

It is further submited that the Apelant , Depak despite having spe nt two and a half years in jail for the ofence he comited , has not shown any

of

remorse and regret. S he was a - year - old schol going girl while the Apelant , Depak is 27 years old. The act of the Apelant , Depak has led to disfigurement of parts of a body , simply because she refused to mary him. The fact that the Apelant has comited a fresh crime while he was on Bail , after being convicted in the present FIR , makes him liable for enhance d punishment of life imprisonment.

34.

Reliance has ben placed on Manga l Singh vs. Kishan Singh, (20 9 ) 17 SC 303 wherein the Apex Court observed that ofence of Section 326 may actualy be more serious than the ofence under Section 307 IPC. The ofence of acid atack on a young unmaried girl would , though fal un der Section 326 , but it is far more serious than a fire arm shot that mises the

victim.

35.

Further , reliance has ben placed on Vishwambhar Narayan Jadhav vs. Malap p a Sangramapa Malipalil & Anr. , (207) 15 SC 60 and Bengai Mondal @ Begai Mandal vs. S tat e of Bihar,

(2010) 2 SC 91.

36.

A prayer is, therefore, made that the sentence of the Apelant , Depak be enhanced to rigorous imprisonment for life.

37.

Apelant , Depak in his response to the Revision Petition , has aserted that the Revision Petition is not maintainable and has ben filed with the sole intent of wasting time of the Court and to haras and humiliate the Apelant , Depak . She has not aproached the Court with clean hands the Revision Petition is only intended to divert the atention of the Court from the facts. He further claimed that he has ben falsely implicated in FIR No. 808/20 with the sole motive of extorting money from him. He was not present at the spot , but was at his work place at

of

Gandhi Nagar, Delhi. He had moved an Aplic ation under Section 91 Cr.P . C . befor e the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for caling the Location Chart Cal Detail Records of his mobile phone, to prove his alibi , which has ben alowed to the extent that the concerned authorities have ben directed to preserve the requisite data.

38.

Writen Submisions have ben filed by him in suport of his case . It is submited that the present Petition is liable to be dismised.

39.

Status Report has ben filed on behalf of the Revision Petition

wherein the entire det ails of the investigations and filing of Charge - Shet in FIR No. 808/ 2 0 12 has ben given further s tated that the Apelant has ben convicted in this case vide Judgment dated 10.04.2012.

40.

It is further detailed that while the Apelant had ben release d on Bail during the Apeal, he had again atacked the victim on 02.1.2012 with a surgical blade for which another FIR No. 808/2012 got registered . The Apelant , Depak has ben convicted in the said FIR vide Judgment dat ed

09.01.2017 has ben senten ced to seven years imprisonment , which is abo ut to be completed by March, 2020.

41.

It is further submited that by w ay of the present Criminal Revision Petition, the victim has sought enhancement of sentence a warded to the Apelant.

Submisions heard and t he record perused.

42.

Atacking a victim with acid out of frustration over refusal to mary is one of the most heinous crimes against women and is a blatant violation of human dignity. Therefore, such cases must be dealt with utmost seriousnes and sensitivi ty. Acid atack victims le ave lifelong trauma and unfortunately,

of

the victim is forced to live with both the physical pain and emotional scars

for the lifetime .

43.

The Apex Court in Parivartan Kendra vs Union of India

(2016) 3 SC 571 encapsulated the gravity the plight of the victim and impact of such crime observed that t he likelines of the victim geting a job which involves physical exertion of energy is very low. The social stigma and the pain that she has to go through for not being acepted b y the society canot be neglected. Furthermore, the general reaction of loathing which she would have to encounter and the humiliation that she would have to face throughout her life canot be compensated in terms of money. As a result of the physical inju ry, the victim wil not be able to lead a normal life and canot dream of mariage prospects. Since her skin is fragile due to the acid atack , she would have to take care of it for the rest of her life. Therefore, the aftercare and rehabilitation cost tha t has to be incured , wil have huge financial implications on her and her family.

4.

There is no doubt that cases of this nature constitute a direct atack on human rights, particularly the victim's right to life and dignity. The victims of such heinous crim es are burdened with lifelong trauma and sufering.

45.

Charges under section 341/326/506/34 IPC w ere framed against the Apelant , Depak and the co - acused, Sanjay Bajaj on 19.1.209 , to which they pleaded not guilty. The C harges against the Apelant , Dep ak

were of having thrown acid on the face of victim and thereby having caused acid burns resulting in grievous injury punishment under Section 326 IPC. Thereafter, the Prosecut rix , Shobha and her m other w ere examined by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate .

of

46.

Ho wever, in view of the N otification dated 04.08.2010 isued by Delhi Comision for Protection of Child Right s (DCPCR) , that al the procedings which were pending in the Court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, be transfered to Children's Court , the mat er was comited

to the Court of Ld. ASJ ( Notified Children 's Court ) vide Order dated

¶270 1.201.

47.

The main prosecution witnes is PW - 2 Shobha, the Complainant , who has narated the entire incident, as it hapened with her on 26.08.209. She explained that she was studying in Clas X in Bal Hans PT Colege, Geta Colony, Delhi (Open Schol). On that day at about 07:45 AM, she along with her younger sister Poja , PW - 4 was going towards schol, when she saw acused Apelant, Depak and Sanjay standing along with one other person. Apelant, Depak was holding a stel glas in his hand and he came near her and threw acid upon her from that stel glas, which fel on her forehead. Thereafter, al of them fled away on motor bike. She felt the burning of acid on her forehead, neck and left hand. She raised a hue and cry, people of the locality gathered on spot. Her younger sister, who saw the incident from a distance, informed their mother, who also reached the spot and she tok her to the Hospital. Her statement Ex.PW - 2/A was recorded, on which the FIR was registered.

48.

She further explained that the Apelant, Depak was known to her for about 06 - 07 months prior to the incident as he used to stalk her and was coercing her for mariage. He also used to thr eaten her that he would throw acid upon her. He had also taken her to the Court after enticement and obtained her signatures on some documents. She had ben persistently

of

denying the ofer of mariage. On her refusal, Apelant, Depak had also threatened t o kil her brothers and sisters. She further narated that the Apelant, Depak threw acid upon her since she refused to mary him.

49.

In her cros - examination, she explained that did not have the C ertificate for Clas IX and was therefore, she was doing he r Clas X from Open Scholing. It has further emerged in cros - examination of PW - 2, the victim that at the time when those documents were signed by the Victim, Shobha they were printed and not blank. She further explained that they went to Dr. Hedgewar Hos pital in a TSR and there at about at about 08:30 AM. She further clarified that she had not complai ned about the conduct of Apelant , Depak for chasing and forcing her for mariage, though she voluntered that her mother had tried to make him underst and. She further explained that the Apelant and co - acused were standing at the motorcycle

but she wa s not aware of the motorcycle number. On seing her coming, they started moving motorcycle and had thrown acid on her while she was walking on the right side of the road.

50.

Her testimony is coroborate d by PW - 4 Poja, her younger sister , who was about 1 years old. She also coroborated that on 26.08.209 at about 07:30 AM, when along with her sister PW - 2 Shobha was going to Schol, the Apelant Depak th rew something from a plastic glas on the face of her sister, who starting crying loudly, while the Apelant Depak along with other co - acused fled on the motorcycle. Cros - examination was done in detail, wherein she stated that she did not sustain any i njury during this incident.'

of

51.

The third material witnes was PW - 5 Mera , mother of the victim, who deposed that she was working as a Sweper at Dera Baba Karam Singh Gurudwara Schol, Patparganj Road, Delhi and used to leave her house at about 07:30 AM. Her daughter PW 2 Shobha was studying in BaI Hans Schol, Rashid Market near their house , in 10th Clas. She used to complain to her that the Apelant, Depak used to stop and tease her. The Apelant, Depak was known to her, as he used to visit their stre t and kept standing in front of their house. Apelant, Depak was acompanied by co - acused Sanjay. She was also informed by her daughter that the Apelant, Depak

used to presurize her get maried with him or else he would kil her younger brothers and sisters. He also had threatened that in case, she did not agre with his proposal, he would disfigure her face. She further coroborated that at about 07:45 AM, her younger daughter came from the schol weping that the Apelant has thrown acid on Shobha . Some persons who had known her, brought PW - 2 Shobha to the Schol and she saw some people puting water on her at the gate of Gurudwara/Schol. She tok her in an A uto and reached her home, where she woke up her son and then they went to the Hospital nea r Karkardoma. The right - side face, neck and other portion of PW - 2 Shobha's body was foun PW - 6 Anuj made a cal at No.10 to the Police, who arived in the Hospital and recorded the statement of the Victim. She was extensively cros - examine d, but nothing material could be elicited.

52.

The fourth material witnes was PW - 6 Anuj, brother of the Victim,

who also coroborated that the Apelant, Depak used to tease his sister Shobha and was presurizing her to get maried with him. On 25.08.209,

of

i .e. one day prior to the incident, the Apelant, Depak and the co - acused Sanjay had met him at Shiv Puri, where he had asked them to not stalk or haras his sister. On this, Apelant, Depak threatened him that he would throw acid on the face of hi s sister and also threatened to kil his brothers and sisters. On 26.08.209 at about 07:45/08:0 AM, while he was sleping in the house, his younger sister Bito came crying and told him that the Apelant, Depak had thrown acid on PW - 2 Shobha. Their mo ther , PW - 5 Mera also came there and they tok PW - 2 Shobha to the Hospital. Again, though he was cros - examined extensively, no material contradiction could be elicited.

53.

The testimony of PW - 2 Shobha is fuly coroborated by that of her younger sister Poj a , PW - 4 who was an eyewitnes and was with her at the time ocuring of incident. Furthermore, the testimon y of PW - 2, 4, 5 and 6 have ben consistent that the Apelant, Depak used to stalk and tease the Victim. They al consistently stated that not only was he exerting her to get maried with him but was also extending threat to kil her younger brothers and sisters and also disfigure her face. It is therefore , proven that because the Apelant, Depak was intending to mary PW - 2, Shobha to which she and her family members were not agre able , he persistently stalked and teased and even enticed her to the Court and made her sign some documents.

54.

Al this prosecution evidence consistently establishes the motive of Apelant, Depak intending to mary the Victim, Shobha to which she was not agred and thus , he threatened to disfigure her face and kil her brothers and sisters.

of

5.

The testimony of the prosecution witneses was sought to be impeached on the ground of there are material contradiction s in the t estimony of Prosecution Witneses. Acording to the victim, as per her deposition, Apelant, Depak c ame on a motorcycle thr ew acid while siting on the motorcycle and escap ed thereafter. However, the Prosecutrix has explained in her testimony that th ey were standing on the motorcycle and on seing her coming they started moving and threw acid on her face, while she was walking on the right side of the road. She was categorical in stating that they were not wearing helmet.

56.

Though, PW - 4 Poja has depos ed that they were wearing helmets, but it has also ben explained that PW - 4 Poja was litle far from the Victim , Shobha . Whether, she was able to se them throwing acid or not, the testimony of PW - 2 Shobha has ben consistent and she has named the Apela nt, Depak . There is nothing brought on record to discredit the testimony of the Prosecutrix. It may also be mentioned that the Apelant, Depak was known to the Prosecutrix for the last 06 - 07 months and he was not a stranger, whom she had sen for the fi rst time. She was categorical in her testimony about acid being thrown by the Apelant, Depak , as he had ben threatening her from the past. The identity of the Apelant, Depak

and the incident of throwing acid upon her stand s proven beyond reasonable doubts.

57.

The defence counsel had also sought to claim that there were contradiction in the statement of PW - 5 Mera, mother of the Victim, Shobha

as to how she came to know about hapening of the incident. However, her testimony is consistent in stating tha t she was present in the Gurudwara/

of

Schol and was informed by her younger daughter about the incident with the elder daughter. She saw public persons throwing water on the face of her daughter, just outside her schol. She has also stated that she has put her daughter in an A uto and went home and after taking her son, they al went to Hospital. Similar is the testimony of PW - 6 Anuj, brother of Victim. There is absolutely no contradiction in this regard.

58.

The testimon y of these four witneses , was fuly cor roborated by D No.14A , Ex.PW - 1/A recorded at 09:43 AM, wherein it was recorded that brother of the Victim has given information about acid being thrown on his sister near Rasid Market, Gurudwara and they were taking her to the Hospital. The D entry also fuly coroborates the testimony of the Prosecution witneses.

59.

The other material document is the ML C (Ex.PW - 10/A), which clearly states that the Victim had burns to the extent of 15 - 18% due to acid atack. It has also ben proved by PW - 10 Dr. Abhishek Bi swas, who examined the Victim when brought to the Hospital and found the burn injuries.

60.

PW - 3 Dr. Rajesh Kumar, SR Surgery, Dr. Hedgewar Hospital, Karkardoma, who proved the MLC dated 26.08.209 of the Victim that was prepared by Dr. Vishal K. Gajwaiya. T he opinion on the MLC is Ex.PW - 3/A, acording to which the injuries sufered by the Victim were grievous in nature.

61.

The investigations were caried out by PW - 12 SI Suresh Pal, who deposed that on receipt of D No.14A Ex.PW - 1/A, he along with HC Pramod Kuma r had reached the spot and had inspected the site and caled

of

Crime Team , which tok the photographs Ex.PW - 8/A1 to A8. He further deposed that there were acid spots and the concrete /earth with acid , were lifted from the spot. They then went to the Hospi tal where he obtained the MLC of the Victim Shobha and also recorded her statement Ex.PW - 2/A and got the FIR registered.

62.

Much had argued on behalf of the Apelant, Depak that there was material contradiction in the testimony of PW - 2, Shobha who claimed t hat it was a stel glas in which the Apelant, Depak was carying the acid, while PW - 4 had aserted it to be a plastic glas. Whether it was a plastic glas of stel glas, is of no consequence considering the consistent testimony of the victim, which s tands fuly coroborated by the MLC which mentioned the acid burns on the victim also from the testimony of PW - 10 Dr. Abhishek Biswas.

63.

The Apelant, Depak had tried to give a sugestion that there was acid stored in the house of Victim as her brothe r PW - 6 Anuj was working in a nail polish factory and that while removing the acid botle from a height it had falen on the Victim , Shobha . First and foremost, there is no evidence whatsoever to prove that acid fel on her acidently at her residence, espe cialy in the light of consistent testimony of not only the Victim , Shobha

but also her sister, mother and brother. Rather, from this sugestion given to PW - 2 Shobha / Victim, it is in fact an admision on the part of the Apelant, Depak that the Victim ha d infact , sufered acid burns.

64.

The Apelant had examined defence witnes DW - 1 Deva S/o. Sh. Ram Singh, landlord in the house of whom the Victim , Shobha and her family , were tenant. Acording to him, he got vacated the premises on

of

acount of activities of PW - 2 Shobha, who used to tel him that she love d him and wanted to mary him. Victim , Shobha and her family then shifted to Rashid Market, Geta Colony. He, on the date of incident, i.e. 26.08.209, had made a cal to the Apelant, Depak , but his phone was switched of. He further deposed that thereafter, at around 10:0 AM when he made a cal to the Apelant, Depak , he told him about the incident of acid atack on PW - 2 Shobha. He also deposed that after the FIR was registered, PW - 2 Shobha made a deman d of Rs.50,0/ - from Apelant, Depak to setle the dispute. His testimony in fact coroborates about the incident of throwing of acid on Victim. Nothing more has emerged from his testimony.

65.

DW - 2 Raj Kumar has also deposed that he came to know about the incident of throwing acid on Shobha by the Apelant, Depak . He further stated that the Apelant had told him that he was not involved in the incident as he was sleping in his house . H owever, his statement is esentialy based on hearsay and does not he lp him in any maner. He also claimed that the Apelant, Depak had told him that she was demanding money to withdraw the case, but again, this sugestion also does not prove any defence of the Apelant, Depak .

6.

1 of * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: th April Pronounced on: th August + CRL.A. 909/2012 DEPAK @ DEPU S/o Sh. Umesh Chand Gupta, R/o H. No.76 - A, Gali No.3, Saroj i ni Park, Shastri Nagar, Delhi. .Apelant Through: Mr. Harshit Jain, Adv. (DHCLSC), Mr. Shubham, Mr. Rahul, Mr. Sajan, Advs. versus THE STATE Govt. of NCT of Delhi. .Respondent Through: Mr. Utkarsh, AP with SI Arvind Kumar Saini, PS : Geta Colony . + CRL.REV.P. 46/2013 SHOBHA D/o. Shri Jaiprakash Bajpai R/o H. No.207, G ali No.2, Khureji Khas, Delhi. .Petitioner Through: Petitioner in person. versus 1. STATE (NCT of Delhi) 2. S.H.O. P.S. - Shakarpur, Delhi. 3. The Comisioner of Police P.H.Q., I.P. Estate, Delhi Police 2 of I.T.O., New Delhi . 4. DEPAK @ DEPU S/o Sh. Umesh Chand Gupta, R/o H. No.76 - A, Gali No.3, Sarojini Park, Shastri Nagar, Delhi. .Respondent Through: Mr. Utkarsh, AP with SI Arvind Kumar Saini, PS Geta Colony . Mr. Harshit Jain, Adv. (DHCLSC) for R - 2 with R - 2 i n person. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NENA BANSAL KRISHNA J U D G M E N T