1 2025:CGHC:9764 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1972 of 2019 1 - Surendra Goyal S/o Itwari Goyal Aged About 30 Years Occupation Labour, R/o Village Jhal, Police Station - Navagarh, District - Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Navagarh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Ms. Puspha Dwivedi, Advocate For Res./State : Mr. R. C. S. Deo Singh, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Judgment on Board 25.02.2025 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.12.2019 passed by learned Sessions Judge Bemetara, District- Bemetara (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 32/2018 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction U/S Sentence Fine In default of payment of Fine Under Section 326-A of Indian Penal Code Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years Rs. 25,000/- 1 year imprisonment 2 Under Section 326-B of Indian Penal Code Rigorous imprisonment for 5 years Rs. 10,000/- 6 months imprisonment Both the sentences will run concurrently 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the injured Sanjay Sonwani was an accused of the offence of rape which was committed with the wife of the present appellant in which he was detained in jail. He could be released on bail on 28.03.2018 and was residing with his family at village jhaal. On 10.04.2018 at about 7.00 pm, when he was chatting with his friend near Government tube-well at village- Jhaal, the appellant came there from his motorcycle and threw acid upon the injured Sanjay Sonwani by which he received acid burn injuries on his face, both the hands and other parts of the body. His friend Sukhnandan has also received acid burn injuries on his body. Thereafter, both of them were taken to the Government Hospital, Navagarh. Raju Sonwani (PW02) who is the brother of the injured Sanjay Sonwani lodged the report to the police on 10.04.2018. On the report made by Raju Sonwani (PW02), an FIR Ex. P/1 was registered against the present appellant for the offence under Sections 307, 326-A and 34 of IPC. The injured sanjay Sonwani, after his primary treatment at Nawagarh Hospital, referred to Balaji Hospital, Raipur for his treatment where he remained hospitalized from 11.04.2018 till 21.04.2018. His MLC was done by L.D. Thakur (PW10) and gave his report Ex. P/6 and the hospital records of Balaji Hospital Raipur are Ex. P/16 to Ex. P/34. Another injured namely- Sukhandan was also taken to Government Hospital, Nawagarh where he was being treated by the doctor L. D. Thakur (PW10) who gave his report Ex. P/7 with respect to injured Sukhnandan. Spot map Ex. P/2 was prepared by the Police and Spot Map Ex. P/8 was prepared by the Patwari. One plastic bottle having smell of acid, acid content soil and plain soil have 3 been seized from the spot vide seizure memo Ex. P/4. Clothes of the injured Sanjay Sonwani has also been seized vide seizure memo Ex. P/5. Both the injured were not able to give their statements which has been certified by the Dr. L. D Thakur (PW10) which have been exhibited as Ex. P/10 and Ex. P/11. The clothes of both the injured persons and the liquid found in the plastic bottle seized from the spot were sent for its chemical examination to State Chemical Examination Centre, Raipur and from where report Ex. P/14 received wherein it has been mention that sent article were found content with Sulfuric acid (H₂SO₄). The appellant was arrested on 11.04.2018. memorandum statement of the appellant was recorded as Ex. P/ 3. 3. The statement of witnesses were recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C. Statement of the injured persons under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. have also been recorded. 4. After completion of usual investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant for the offence under Section 307, 326-A of IPC before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bemetara, from where the same has been committed to the learned sessions judge, Bemetara for its trial. The learned trial Court has framed charges against the appellant for the offence under Sections 326-A (on two counts) of Indian Penal Code. The accused persons denied the charges and claimed trial. 5. In order to establish the charges against the accused persons, the prosecution has examined as many as 17 witnesses. The statement of the present appellant was also recorded under section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the material appearing against him, plead innocence and stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. 4 6. After appreciation of oral & documentary evidence available on record, the learned trial court has convicted and sentenced the appellant, as mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. There are material omission and contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which cannot be made basis for his conviction. She would also submit that except the injured persons, there is no other eyewitness to the incident. She would further submit that since the injured Sanjay Sonwani was accused for commission of the offence of rape against the wife of the present appellant, in order to settle his score, he has falsely implicated the present appellant whereas no offence has been committed by him. The prosecution has not produced any evidence with respect to the source of obtaining the said acid. She would also submit that though from the medical evidence, the injured Sanjay Sonwani appears to be received grievous injuries but there is no cogent and clinching evidence that the present appellant has caused such injury upon him by throwing acid and in absence of clinching and cogent evidence, the appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt and he is entitled for the acquittal. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State while opposing the arguments advanced by the counsel for the appellant, contended that except minor contradictions and omissions, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Both the two injured witness namely- Sanjay Sonwani (PW01) and Sukhnandan (PW04) have duly supported the case of the prosecution that it is the appellant who threw the acid upon them by which they received grievous injuries on their body. The injured Sanjay sonwani has lost his both the eyes by the said acid which 5 has been thrown by the appellant. The injuries found on the body of the injured persons have also been proved by the doctors who treated the injured persons. There are overwhelming evidence against the appellant which has rightly been considered by the learned trial Court and the learned trial court after considering the entire evidence, by the impugned judgment, has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant, which is absolutely justified and needs no interference. 9. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. Sanjay Sonwani (PW01) is one of the injured of the said acid attack. He has stated in his evidence that on 10.04.2018 at about 7.00pm, when he was chatting with his friend near government tube-well, village- Jhaal, the appellant came there by his motorcycle and he had a plastic bottle having certain chemical in it which he poured upon him by which he received burn injuries on his face and all over the body. He soughted for help and fell down of the ground. His friend Sukhanandan has chased the appellant and thereafter his family members have taken him to the Government Hospital, Nawagarh from where he referred to Balaji Hospital, Raipur. At the time of the incident, few persons namely- Rajju Goyal, Naresh Sonwani and Malikram had seen the incident (who thereafter appeared as the prosecution witnesses before the trial Court). At this juncture, the learned trial Court had made a note observing that both the eyes of the injured Sanjay Sonwani are affected by the acid attack. He further stated that the appellant has lodged a report against the commission of offence of rape against his wife in which he was detained in jail and could have released on 28.03.2018. In cross- examination, he remained firm that he had seen the appellant throwing the acid upon him. The defence could not extract any material from 6 cross-examination of this witness to show that his evidence could be disbelieved. He also admitted that he was remained in jail for commission of offence of rape with the wife of the present appellant which is the motive to commit the said offence and to throw the acid upon the injured Sanjay Sonwani. 11. Sukhanandan (PW04) is another injured who also stated in his evidence that on 10.04.2018 at about 7.30pm, when he was chatting with the injured Sanjay Sonwani near Government tube-well, the appellant came there and threw acid upon them. Due to which, injured sanjay Sonwani fell down on the ground and he chased the appellant but the appellant fled away. He informed the incident to Malikram, Naresh Sonwani and Rajju who were standing near by the place of incident and thereafter, they were being taken to hospital for treatment. In his cross-examination, he too have firmed that the appellant has poured acid upon the injured Sanjay Sonwani and due to the darkness, he fled away from the place of incident. He admitted that he is not having any enmity with the appellant and were having cordial relationship with him. He too have admitted that a case has been registered against the Sanjay Sonwani with respect to the rape of the wife of present appellant. From the evidence of this witness nothing could be brought on record by the defence in his cross- examination so that his evidence can also be disbelieved. From the evidence of these two injured witnesses, the prosecution has duly proved that it is the appellant who caused acid burn injuries upon them by the appellant. 12. Raju Sonwani (PW02) is the informant who lodged the report to the police about the incident and he has stated in his evidence that after the incident, he came to know about the incident and Sukhnandan (PW04 ) has informed about the incident that the appellant has poured acid type 7 liquid upon the injured Sanjay Sonwani who is his brother and fled away. He also stuck in his evidence that when he heard about the incident he went to the spot and saw both the injured persons and taken them to the hospital. He too have proved the fact that his brother Sanjay Sonwani was remained in jail on the report made by the present appellant with respect to the offence of commission of rape. 13. Rajju Goyal (PW05), Naresh Sonwani (PW06) are the witnesses to the effect that the injured Sukhnandan was chasing the appellant. When Sukhandan informed about the incident they had gone to the place of incident and found Sanjay Sonwani was having burn injuries on his body. 14. Dr. L. D. Thakur (PW10) who given primary treatment to the injured persons at Primary Health Centre, Nawagarh stated in his evidence that on 10.04.2018 at about 8.30 pm, both these injured persons brought before him and he had given primary treatment to them and after considering the nature of injuries they were referred to the higher Centre. He proved the injuries certificate Ex. P/6 and Ex. P/7. In his evidence, he has proved that the injuries found on the body of the injured persons are the acid burn injuries. Nothing significant has been asked from him in his cross-examination by the defence to hold that the injuries found on the body of the injured persons were not received by the acid. 15. Dr. Devendra Naik (PW16) who treated the injured Sanjay Sonwani at Balaji Hospital, Raipur has proved the admission slip Ex. P16 and bed head ticket Ex. P/17 to Ex. P/34. He stated in his evidence that on 11.04.2018, the injured Sanjay Sonwani was admitted in the Balaji Hospital, Raipur and he was treated by him at the hospital. The injured had received the burn injuries which was 20% deep burn, his both eyes were injured and lost its vision almost completely. He was admitted in the hospital from 11.04.2018 to 21.04.2018 and thereafter, referred to Sai 8 Baba Eye Hospital, Raipur. The injuries found on the body of the injured Sanjay Sonwani was dangerous to his life. The doctor was being cross- examined on the point of the percentage of injuries and burn but he remained firm that injured Sanjay Sonwani has completely lost his both eyes in the acid attack. 16. N. S. Markam (PW15) is the Investigating OfÏcer who duly proved the investigation carried out in the offence and proved the manner in which he investigated the matter and chargesheet has been filed. 17. Close scrutiny of the matter goes to show that on 10.04.2018 at about 7.00 pm, when both the injured persons namely- Sanjay Sonwani and Sukhnandan were chatting near government tube-well, the appellant came there having plastic bottle in his hand contend with the sulfuric acid and poured upon both the injured persons by which they received burn injuries on their body. By the said acid attack, the injured Sanjay Sonwani lost his both eyes and thus, the prosecution is able to prove the offence against the appellant that he voluntarily caused grievous hurt by use of acid upon the injured Sanjay sonwani and voluntarily thrown the acid upon the injured Sukhnandan for which the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 326-A and 326-B of IPC. 18. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, material available on record and also the provisions of law, I do not find any good ground to interference with the well reasoned finding recorded by the learned trial Court convicting the appellant and sentencing him for the alleged offence. 19. In the result the appeal filed by the appellant fails and is hereby dismissed. He shall undergo the entire sentence awarded by the learned trial Court. The appellant is reported to be in jail since 11.04.2018 he 9 shall be entitled for set-off of undergone period during the trial as well as during the appeal. 20. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his jail sentences to serve the same on the appellant informing him that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. 21. The trial court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/-Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge amita Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2025.04.01 15:53:07 +0530