Krishna Sah vs The State of Bihar

Anjana Prakash, J.—The Appellants have been convicted under Sections 326/34 and 341 IPC whereas the Appellant, Krishna Sah has been convicted and sentenced to RI for five years and fine of Rs. 1,000/-. The sentence of the Appellants, Radhey Shyam Sah and Ram Ekbal Sah is to the extent of two years RI by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. III, Motihari in S. Tr. No. 431/89/139/2002 by judgment and order dated 07.05.2002. The case of the Informant is that on 26.01.1989 at about 10 P.M. while his brother, Jai Lal Sah after closing his shop was returning accused, Ram Ekbal Sah and Radhe Shyam Sah caught hold of his hands whereas accused, Krishna Sah threw acid on his face on account of which his face was badly burnt and his eye was damaged.

The defence of the Appellant, Krishna Sah was one of alibi that he was under medical treatment on the date of occurrence.

During trial the prosecution examined eight witnesses. P.W. 1, Khairu Rai stated that on the night of occurrence he heard hue and cry upon which he ran towards place of occurrence and found Jailal crying and his face, eye, nose, ear and chest was burnt by acid. He told him that the Appellants had thrown acid at him whom he also saw fleeing away. The reason for the occurrence is that earlier the victim had chided Krishna Sah for visiting the house of daughter-in-law of Sukhdeo Ram which was not liked by him and he had threatened the injured of dire consequences and for this reason thrown acid on his face.

P.W. 2, Daroga Sah also supported the same version as given out by P.W. 1, Khairu Rai.

P.W. 4, Jailal the victim stated that on the night of the occurrence while he was returning to his house after closing his shop with a torch in his hand the Appellant, Radhey Shyam Sah and Ram Ekbal Sah caught hold of his hands whereas Appellant Krishna Sah brought something in a glass and threw it on him and then fled away. His face started burning and he fell down. He alleged that his face, eye, ear, chest and arms were burnt and further stated that he had lost his power of hearing and sight of the left eye. He supported the fact that many witnesses came to the place of occurrence and that the motive was the earlier incident when he had chided Krishna Sah from going to the house of daughter-in-law of Sukhdeo Sah which was not liked by him. He supported the fact that he was medically treated.

P.W. 5 is the informant who repeated the version given out in the First Information Report supports the Prosecution case in all material particulars. There is no major discrepancy in his evidence.

P.W. 3, Dr. Ahmad Ansari found four injuries on the person of Jailal all caused by acid. Thus he fully corroborated the prosecution story.

P.W. 6 is the Investigating Officer who collected the objective evidence further in support of the prosecution case. P.W. 7 and P.W. 8 have been declared hostile.

On going through the evidence of the witnesses, P.W. 1, Khairu Rai, P.W. 2, Daroga Sah, P.W. 4, Jailal, the victim and P.W. 5 the Informant, Budhlal Sah, I have no reason to reject the prosecution case where the manner of occurrence or the participation of the Appellant is concerned. The further consideration is the evidence of the Doctor which supports the allegation of grievous and life threatening hurt by acid.

In my opinion, thus prosecution having discharged its duty in proving the case beyond all reasonable doubt, the appeal is dismissed. The Trial Court is directed to take immediate steps for arrest of the Appellants to ensure that they serve out the remaining sentence.