Page No.# 1/10 GAHC010007682014 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./120/2014 DHRUBAJYOTI BHARALI S/O KABIN BHARALI R/O VILL- UTTAR GANDHIBARI P.O. GANDHIBARI, P.S. TAMULPUR, DIST. BAKSA BTAD, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM and ANR. 2:ROTIMAL DEKA S/O- LT. KANDUA DEKA R/O VILL.- DAKHIN GANDHIBARI P.O.- DAKHIN GANDHIBARI DIST.- BAKSA BTAD ASSAM PIN- 781366 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.J KALITA, Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 13-10-2025 Heard Mr. J. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. A. Begum, Page No.# 2/10 learned Addl. P.P. Assam appearing for the State respondent. 2. The present revision petition is instituted assailing the judgment and order dated 23-12-2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nalbari in Crl. Appeal No. 09/2013 dismissing the same and thereby, upholding the judgment and order dated 16-01-2013 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalbari in GR. Case No. 243/2009 convicting the petitioner, herein, under Section 324 IPC and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for 03 (three) years and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand), in default to suffer simple imprisonment for another 02 (two) months. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Sri Ratimal Deka had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge, Tamulpur Police Station on 18-09-2009, inter-alia, stating that on 16-09-2009 at around 06:30 p.m. the petitioner, herein, had come to his house and had talked to his daughter for a while. Thereby, it was alleged that the petitioner, herein, had threatened his daughter of shooting her and later poured acid on her. On receipt of the said FIR, police registered Tamulpur P.S. Case No. 135/2009 under Section 307/ 448/ 326 IPC. On conclusion of the investigation, the police had laid charge-sheet against the petitioner, herein, under Section 324/ 448 IPC. The learned Trial Court had framed charges under Section 324/ 448 IPC against the petitioner, herein and the same on being read over and explained, the petitioner, herein, had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, accordingly, a trial ensued in the matter. The prosecution, during the trial, examined 06 witnesses. Thereafter, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Page No.# 3/10 On conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court upon appreciating the evidences coming on record was pleased vide judgment and order dated 16-01-2013 to convict the petitioner, herein, under Section 324 IPC. Upon such conviction, the petitioner, herein, was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 03 (three) years with fine of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand), in default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for 02 (two) more months. The petitioner, herein, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 16-01- 2013 passed by the learned Trial Court, assailed the same by way of instituting an appeal being Crl. Appeal No. 09/2013, before the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Nalbari. The learned Appellate Court upon appreciating the evidences coming on record was pleased vide judgment and order dated 23-12-2013 to dismiss the appeal by upholding the conviction of the petitioner, herein, by the learned Trial Court under Section 324 IPC. 4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present proceeding. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also considered the materials available on record. 6. The learned Trial Court upon appreciating the evidences coming on record was pleased vide judgment and order dated 16-01-2013 to draw the following conclusions:- “16) On scrutiny of the evidences on record the following points were yielded a) The evidence of the injured (P.W2) is clear and specific. b) the informant as P.W1 corroborated the F.I.R he lodged. c) The medical evidence supported the evidence of the injured (P.W2). d) All other examined P.Ws supported the case of the prosecution. e) The cross examinations of the P.Ws failed to yield anything in favor of the accused. Page No.# 4/10 In the facts and circumstances of this case in hand, relying on the testimony of the injured person (P.W2), the accused must be held guilty of inflicting the alleged wounds to the P.W2 as injured was treated at a hospital for the injuries, after the incident. The P.W6 Dr. Pankaj Kalita (who examined the P.W2) found superficial burn injuries on the P.W2. Now the question is what weapon or means was used in the alleged incident. As discussed earlier, the evidence of the P.W2 (injured) is specific that accused poured her something for which she sustained injuries. The doctor who examined the injured, found burn injuries on her. From the evidence of the P.W2 (injured) and the P.W6 (doctor) it is clear that accused poured some substance on the victim (P.W.2) for which she sustained burn injury. At this stage I have considered another aspect that Id. predecessor who recorded the statement was shown the injury marks by the victim/P.W2. In this case we are not to decide specifically whether accused used acid or not but to decide specifically whether any dangerous means was used or not by the accused for commission of the alleged incident. From the evidences on record it is by now clear that accused poured something for which the P.W2 sustained burn injuries. Corrosive substance has a local chemical action of corroding and destroying the tissues they come into contract with. Like the case in hand the substance poured by the accused over victim must be a corrosive substance for which it caused burn injury on the victim (P.W2). POINT NO-B In regards to the point B) for determination I have considered the evidences on record and found that as per the victim of this case (P.W2) accused often comes to their house. As per P.W1 (informant), love affair was there between the accused and his (P.W1's) daughter i.e. P.W2. From the evidences of these two most material witnesses of this case, it appears that accused has free ingress to the house of the informant (P.W1). To prove a case under section 447 or 448 I.P.C the prosecution must prove that one has entered into any property / house in the possession of another with the intention to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property. In this case the examined P.Ws including the victim and the informant never adduced any evidence that, accused entered into the house with the intention to commit an offence. According to the victim (P.W2) and the informant (P.W1) before the incident of pouring of acid like substance over the victim, both the accused and the victim were talking at the room situated at the courtyard of the house of informant. From Page No.# 5/10 the evidences on record it cannot be held that accused came to the house of the informant with the intention to pour acid like substance on the victim although at a later stage accused poured acid like substance on the victim. Considering all evidences on record in my opinion here in this case there is no specific evidence against the accused in regards to the point b) for determination. Accordingly the point--B) for determination is decided in negative. 17) Failing to shake the evidence of the prosecution case in relation with the point A) for determination, the Id. Defense counsel vehemently argued that, no-1-- As prosecution failed to examine all Investigating officers, the accused was prejudiced, as he failed to cross examine all investigating officer. No-2 that the victim has on her own, went to a private hospital, without any police requisition and for these two reasons the whole case is under the cloud of doubt, for which accused deserves acquittal. After raising of this two points, the Id. Defense counsel again argued that as love affair was there between the accused and the victim, it is unlikely that accused will cause hurt to the victim. I have considered these points raised by the Id. Counsel of the accused and found that they both are too weak to play the role of catalyst in this case, for the following reasons------ a) It is not mandatory to examine all witnesses, in this case one investigating officer was examined and accused got full opportunity to cross examine him. Investigating officers are formal witness and are related to materials on record only and in this case if anything was to be asked then what has prevented the accused from asking the examined investigating officer i.e. P.W6. In regards to the evidence relating to investigation any investigating officer can answer to any quarry and it is not the position that one particular investigating officer can only answer to a particular question. b) The point that if one injured went to any private hospital at his own will make the whole case doubtful is, as discussed above is a very weak submission as it is based on imaginary substance and not even based on any probability. In regards to the last point raised during argument, in my opinion, in this case there is clear evidence that accused poured acid like substance on the body of the informant, as the victim refused to accept the proposal of marriage tendered by the accused. Here the accused failed to justify the evidence on record that, why immediately after the incident he fled from the place of occurrence. In Sucha Singh V/S State of Punjab, (2003) 7 SCC,643, The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that “A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. It must grow out of the evidence of it." Here the Hon'ble Supreme Court also Page No.# 6/10 observed that "doubt would not be called reasonable unless it is free from a zest of speculation. Law cannot afford any favorite other then truth." 18) This being the position of this case I hold that on the date, time and place, the accused Dhrubajyoti Bharali voluntarily caused hurt to the victim of this case i.e. Smti Nomita Deka, by corrosive substance, which is a dangerous means, and which if used as weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, which is an offence punishable U/S 324 L.P.C. Accordingly the point no-A) is decided in the affirmative accordingly.” 7. Basing on the said conclusions, the learned Trial Court had proceeded to convict the petitioner, herein, under Section 324 IPC in the following manner:- “19) In the result, from the facts and circumstances of this case and from the discussions made above, I hold that the prosecution has succeeded in bringing home the charge U/S 324 1.P.C, against the accused Sri Dhurbajyoti Kalita beyond all reasonable doubt. But prosecution has failed to prove this case in regards to point B) for determination. Accordingly accused Sri Dhurbajyoti Bharali is convicted U/S 324 I.P.C.” 8. On a careful perusal of the conclusions drawn by the learned Trial Court this Court is of the considered view that the conclusion so drawn by the learned Trial Court is supported by the evidences coming on record in the trial and no infirmity is found thereon. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner, herein, by the learned Trial Court would not mandate any interference. Having drawn the said conclusion this Court would now examine the judgment and order dated 23-12-2013 passed by the learned Appellate Court. 9. This Court finds that the learned Appellate Court upon considering the evidence coming on record was pleased to draw the following conclusions:- “15. In the instant case the occurrence took place inside the room. It is found from the evidence that immediately after the occurrence accused fled away from the place of occurrence riding his bicycle. The PW-2, Nomita in her evidence Page No.# 7/10 abundantly made it clear that the accused person poured acid like substance on her at the material time causing burn injuries to her cheek, left hand and leg. The injuries left scar on her person. Her evidence could not be shattered in cross- examination on any material point and the defence failed to yield anything which may create any doubt over the evidence as regard occurrence. 16. Plurality of evidence is not at all required for bringing home the guilt of the accused. It is the quality of the evidence and not the plurality of the witnesses which is important in the appraisal of evidence. Even single witness testimony can be sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused, if found entirely reliable. Evidence has to be weighed not counted. [Barkau Vs. U.P; 1993 CrLJ 2954,2960 (All). See also Rameshwar Vs. state of U.P; 1987 CrLJ 442(All)]. In the case of the State of Uttar Pradesh Vs Naresh, reported in 2011 CrLJ. 2162, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held: "The evidence of an injured witness must be given due weightage being a stamped witness, thus, his presence can not be doubted. His statement is generally considered to be very reliable and it is unlikely that he has spared the actual assailant in order to falsely implicate some one else. The testimony of an injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence and this lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. The witness would not like or want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to implicate a third person falsely for the commission of the offence. Thus, the evidence of the injured witness should be relied upon, unless there are ground for the rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradiction and discrepancies therein." It is very unlikely that the injured witness would screen the actual offender. 17. From the foregoing discussion, it is found that the prosecution abundantly made it clear that at the material time accused came to the house of the PW-1 and poured acid like substance i e corrosive substance on her daughter, PW-2, causing injury on her cheek, leg and left hand. The injury sustained on the person of PW-2 finds support in the medical evidence of PW-6. It is explained in the cross-examination of PW-1 that since the doctor was not available in the nearby hospital victim was taken to Rangia Poly Clinic for medical treatment. The defence could not elicit any vital discrepancies as to what the PWs stated in their evidence before the court and their carlier statement made before investigating police officer. 18. Learned counsel for the accused/appellant argued that the prosecution failed to examine all Investigating Officers and thereby accused was prejudiced. Prosecution examined the PW-5, one of the Investigating officers of this case. The Page No.# 8/10 defence got full opportunity to cross-examine the PW-5 to clarify any point regarding investigation and discrepancy, if any, revealed in evidence. Upon perusal of cross-examination of the PWs it is found that the defence could not elicit any material contradiction or omission as regards statement of the witnesses before the Investigating Police Officer and their subsequent statement before the court. Therefore, non examination of remaining I/Os, in the instant case, does not appear to have caused any prejudice to the defence. Learned counsel for the accused appellant further argued that the FIR was lodged belatedly without any explanation for such delay. It is submitted that the informant got scope for exaggeration and for implicating the accused falsely. The alleged occurrence took place on 16/9/09 at 6-30 pm. It is found from the FIR(Ext-1) itself that the informant, PW-1, lodged the ejahar before Gandhibari police out post on 18/9/09. It is true that neither in the FIR nor in the evidence informant. PW-1, offered any explanation as regards delay in lodging the FIR. Mere delay in lodging the first information report is not necessarily, as a matter of law, fatal to the prosecution. Delay in every case cannot be a ground to arouse suspicion. Considering the clinching evidence available to prosecution, in the instant case, such delay in my considered opinion is not fatal to the prosecution case. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the accused appellant that the court below ought to have extended the benefit of the provision of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the accused appellant. PW2, a young girl, is the victim of acid throwing leaving scar of wound on her face and left hand. Accused deserves deterrent punishment which would deter the like minded persons. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in my considered opinion it is not a fit case to invoke the provision of the aforesaid Act. 19. In view of the foregoing discussion and reasons, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. The accused/appellant is, therefore, held guilty of committing offence punishable u/s-324 IPC. Learned Magistrate after proper appreciation of evidence on record rightly found the accused/appellant guilty of the offence punishable u/s- 324 IPC which requires no interference in this appeal and accordingly, the conviction and sentence are upheld.” 10. On a close perusal of the said conclusions drawn by the learned Appellate Court, this Court finds that the same is supported by the evidences coming on record and no infirmity is found therein. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the Page No.# 9/10 judgment and order dated 23-12-2013 passed by the learned Appellate Court would not mandate any interference. 11. Having drawn the said conclusions, this Court finds that the petitioner after passing of the judgment dated 23-12-2023 was detained w.e.f. 30-05-2014 till 05-11-2014 when he was enlarged on bail by this Court. 12. The provision of Section 324 IPC being relevant in the matter, the same is extracted, here-in-below:- “324. Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means. - Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.” 13. This Court having upheld the conviction of the petitioner, herein, by the learned Trial Court, this Court notices that the provisions of Section 324 mandates a punishment of imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. This Court noticing the fact that the offence committed by the petitioner, herein, on 16-09-2009 and also considering the long lapse of time that had passed thereafter and also the fact that marriage of the victim girl was solemnised in the meantime, this Court is of the considered view that the ends of justice would be made if the sentencing of the petitioner is limited to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him in the matter. Page No.# 10/10 14. Accordingly, the sentencing, as awarded to the petitioner, under Section 324 IPC is modified to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him. However, the sentencing of payment of fine as imposed by the learned Trial Court is not interfered with. 15. The petitioner, herein, shall appear before the learned Trial Court, i.e. the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalbari within a period of 01 (one) month from today and deposit the fine amount imposed by the learned Trial Court vide judgment and order dated 16-01-2013. 16. With the above observations and directions, the present revision petition stands disposed of. 17. Registry to send back the TCR to the learned Trial Court along with a copy of this order for information and necessary action. JUDGE Comparing Assistant