Mithu Sah, Laljhari Devi, Kishore Sah @ Raj Kishore Sah and Bashishtha Sah @ Chhotka Sah vs The State of Bihar

S.A. Khan, J.—The appellants have been found guilty u/s 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years by the 2nd Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gopalganj in Sessions Trial No. 448/1993. The case as made out in the First Information Report is that the informant Kewal Sah noticed that Mithu Sah had placed his paddy bundles on the land belonging to the informant in the morning. It is said that in the evening at around 5.30, Kewal Sah along with his sons and wife went to the house of his brother and asked him to remove the paddy bundles. The accused persons refused to remove the bundles. Thereafter the informant started to remove the paddy bundles from his land and started to keep those bundles on the land of the accused persons whereupon Mithu Sah ordered his wife to bring acid from the house. She brought acid and handed it to her son, Bashishtha Sah @ Chhotka Sah. Accused Bashishtha Sah @ Chhotka Sah threw acid on the informant which injured his cheek, neck, back and eye. It is also alleged that Laljhari Devi assaulted P.W. 3, Sanjharia Devi. It is further alleged that accused Kishore Sah threw acid on Sheo Shankar Sah as a result of which, Sheo Shankar Sah sustained burn injuries upon left hand and back. It has been stated in the First Information Report that the informant has three brothers. There has been oral partition amongst them and each of them staying on the piece of land allotted to him. The informant''s case is that Mithu Sah was trying to grab the land belonging to him.

On behalf of the appellants, it has been stated that infact the informant and his sons had raised a dispute regarding storing of the paddy bundles. It has been alleged that the informant and others threw acid on the appellants injuring appellant nos. 1 and 2. The injury report has been exhibited in the Trial Court and has been marked as Ext. A series. It would also be apparent that a counter case was instituted by Laljhari Devi. I may mention here that the judgment of the counter case has been produced by the counsel for the informant which indicates that the informant along with his sons have been acquitted in this case.

The family members and the injured persons are the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. The doctor has been examined as P.W. 5 whereas the Investigating Officer in this case has been examined as P.W. 6.

Beginning with the evidence of P.W. 5, It is apparent that three persons namely Sheo Shankar Sah, Sanjharo Devi and Birendra Sah were examined by the doctor on the day on which the occurrence took place. Sheo Shankar Sah has received burn injuries on his left shoulder and left side of chest which have been declared as simple in nature. Sanjharo Devi has received burn injuries on the left cheek, ear and left side of the chest, forehead and shoulder. The doctor had reserved his opinion and gave his final opinion on 1.12.1992 after the injuries were healed and held that the injuries were grievous in nature as there was some disfiguration on the face. Similarly Birendra Sah received injuries over his face, eyes, neck and forehead. Eventually the doctor found that the injuries were grievous in nature as not only was there disfiguration of the face but eye sight was affected.

Four witnesses examined in this case have stated that the appellants were placing their paddy bundles on the land belonging to the informant in the evening when the occurrence is said to have taken place. The point raised on behalf of the appellants is that there is difference in the case made out in the First Information Report and the evidence given in Court. It has been argued that P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 have categorically stated that the paddy bundles were being placed on the land of the informant at 5.30 P.M. which led to this occurrence whereas in the First Information Report, P.W. 4, Kewal Sah has stated that the bundles were placed on the land of the informant in the morning. This aspect has been explained by P.W. 4 in his evidence. He has stated that some paddy bundles were placed in the morning to which the informant had no objection as it was just one or two bundles. However, later in the evening when the appellants began to store all their paddy bundles on the land belonging to the informant, he had raised an objection which led to the occurrence. This slight change regarding the manner of occurrence cannot be fatal for the prosecution. It is admitted that the paddy bundles were being placed by appellant no. 1 and others which was the cause of the dispute and led to the occurrence.

It has also been argued that there is improvement in the prosecution version inasmuch as the witnesses have changed their case by stating that Laljhari Devi got two bottles of acid which she handed over to Bashishtha Sah @ Chhotka Sah and Kishore Sah both, whereas, in the First Information Report the informant does not mention the number of acid bottles produced by Laljhari Devi for the use of the other appellants i.e. Kishore Sah and Bashishtha Sah @ Chhotka Sah. In my view the First Information Report cannot contain each and every detail regarding the occurrence. The main facts have already been mentioned in the First Information Report and as such, cannot be said that omission to mention two bottles would be fatal to the prosecution case. It is admitted by all the witnesses that several villagers came to the place of occurrence. However, none of them have been produced by the prosecution to give their evidence. It is submitted that only interested witnesses have been examined in this case. This aspect of the matter has been explained by P.W. 4, the informant Kewal Sah who has stated that the other witnesses are not interested as they are scared of the appellants. this Court, therefore, rejects all the submission raised on behalf of the appellants with respect to disbelieving the manner of the occurrence.

The legal argument raised on behalf of the appellants that no case is made out u/s 307 of the Indian Penal Code. It is apparent from the evidence of all the witnesses that not a single one of them has stated that the acid was thrown with the intention to kill the informant and his family members. Infact the genesis of the occurrence is a land dispute during which the said acts were committed. this Court, therefore, finds that the appellant nos. 1, 2 and 3 are guilty of an offence u/s 326 of the Indian Penal Code. A submission has been raised on behalf of Laljhari Devi in particular that she has remained in custody for one month and she being the wife of Mithu Sah only obeyed the orders of her husband. She has not participated and is not responsible for committing any overt act. It is argued that the dispute is between the brothers and by virtue of being wife of Mithu Sah, her name has been dragged into this case and she has been assigned the role of bringing acid from the house. Considering this aspect of the matter and the fact that the occurrence took place in 1992, this Court is not inclined to award any sentence to Laljhari Devi. Regarding appellant nos. 1, 3 and 4 it has been submitted that they too have remained in custody for at least one month each and that since the family is closely related sending the appellants to jail at this stage would lead to further hard feelings between the parties. The informant, his sons as well as the appellants are neighbours. Considering this aspect of the matter, this Court directs that appellants nos. 1, 2 and 3 should pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/-each to the informant Kewal Sah within a period of four months failing which they will have to undergo R.I. for four months. The Trial Court is directed to notice the informant to receive the compensation amount. The appellants will be discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds after they had deposited the compensation amount in the Trial Court. The appellants are at liberty to utilize the web copy of this judgment for the purpose of depositing the money within the aforesaid period of four months, in case the Court does not receive certified copy of the judgment. This appeal is accordingly, dismissed with the aforesaid alteration of conviction and sentence.