Acid attack case: Court dismisses appeal against 5-year jail term for burning face of woman

New Delhi [India], May 16 (ANI): A Delhi Court recently dismissed an appeal filed by a person convicted in a case of throwing acid on the face of a woman.
At the time of the incident, the victim was sleeping in her home.
The trial court convicted him and awarded five-year jail term and a fine in 2019.
The matter pertains to the area of Mir Dard Road under the jurisdiction of the police station IP Estate.
The convict had challenged both the conviction and sentence on the ground that the investigation officer of the case turned hostile.
Secondly, the Police did not seize the charpai (Cot) on which the victim was sleeping at the time of the incident.
Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Dharmender Rana of Tis Hazari Court dismissed the appeal moved by appellant Rashid and said, "Considering the totality of circumstances, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment."
"I have no hesitation in holding that the Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the commission of an offence under Section 326 IPC," ASJ Rana said in the judgment of May 10, 2023.
The court also rejected the contention raised by the defence regarding the non-seizure of the Charpai.
"Further, merely because the charpai was not seized in the presence of the complainant or the remaining articles seized by the IO were not put to the complainant, the fact shall not go to the root of the matter and contention in this regard is bereft of any merits and is accordingly rejected," the court said.
It also rejected the contention of the defence regarding the IO turning hostile.
It said that further, with respect to the aspect regarding the IO/ASI Ram Niwas turning hostile is concerned, it is evident he has been cross-examined by Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) regarding the seizure memos.
The Court observed, "Evidently, IO in the instant matter was examined on February 11, 2014, after seven long years of the incident. Therefore, merely because the IO forgot about the seizure memo, the inadvertent omission would not be the entire prosecution case."
"In this country, it is rare to come across the testimony of a witness which does not have a fringe or an embroidery of untruth although his evidence may be true in the main," the Court noted in the judgement.
"It is only where the testimony is tainted to the core, the falsehood and the truth being inextricably intertwined, that the court should discard the evidence," it added.
"Therefore, the duty is cast over this court to dispassionately disengage the truth from the falsehood and accept the truth and reject the same. This court is not meant to reject the testimony of a witness on slightest deflection, however, has a bounden duty to search the truth," the court observed.
"On the point of sentence, it would be apt to observe that the Trial Court has already taken a lenient view against the appellant and no further interference is required in the instant matter on the point of sentence," the court said.
The Court referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Satya Narayan Tiwari vs. the State of UP, in which it was observed that the court is going to take a serious view in the matters of crimes against women and give harsh punishment. The same is reiterated in Special Leave Petition titled Rajbir alias Raju & Anr. vs. the State of Haryana.
The trial court passed the judgement while dismissing an appeal filed by the appellant Rashid challenging the judgment and order on sentence, of October 30, 2019, whereby he was sentenced to undergo RI for a period of five years along with a fine of Rs 10,000 for the commission of an offence under Section 326 IPC. The benefit of Section 428 CrPC was also awarded to the appellant.
This case pertains to an incident on August 7, 2008, at about 3.50 AM at jhuggi appellant Rashid voluntarily caused grievous hurt to the victim by throwing acid upon her face.
Consequently, case FIR No. 216/2008 came to be registered with Police Station I.P.Estate.
After the investigation, the appellant was chargesheeted and charged with the commission of an offence under Section 326 IPC on September 1, 2009.
It was argued by the Defence Counsel that the Trial Court grossly erred by relying upon the uncorroborated testimony of the complainant.
It was submitted that from the testimony of the complainant, it is discernible that there were other family members present in the jhuggi and neighbours were also present at the spot at the time of the incident.
It was also submitted that in these circumstances solitary statement of the complainant should not have been relied upon.
It is further pointed out that in the testimony of the complainant, there is no mention of the date of the incident and it was only pursuant to re-examination by the APP she admitted about the date of the incident.
It was submitted that as per the testimony of the complainant, it is evident that she claims that she was taken to the hospital by her brother, mother and nephew whereas IO/ASI Ram Niwas has claimed that when he reached the hospital, he did not find any eye witness. (ANI)