Você está na página 1de 152

1

CommittedOn:29/01/2014
Receivedon
:29/01/2014
Decidedon
:08/09/2016
Duration
:YMD

020710

INTHECOURTOFSESSIONFORGREATERMUMBAI
ATMUMBAI
(PRESIDEDOVERBYADDITIONALSESSIONSJUDGE
MS.ANJUS.SHENDE,COURTROOMNO.18)
Exh.No.215
SESSIONSCASENO.311OF2014
ShriUjjwalNikam
SpecialPublicProsecutor

TheStateofMaharashtra
(ThroughDCB,CID,UnitD1,
Mumbai)
BandraRailwayPoliceStationCrime
number120of2013)
C.C.NO.295/PW/2014 ....Complainant
VERSUS

Ms.ApekshaVora
Advocate

AnkurNarayanlalPanwar
Age:26years,R/o.C/3,BBMB,DESU
Colony,Narela,Delhi
....Accused
.........ooooo.........

OFFENCESPUNISHABLEUNDER
SECTIONS302,326AAND326B
OFTHEINDIANPENALCODE,1860.
JUDGMENT:(ORAL)
(Dated8thSeptember,2016)
.........
Atrocities againstwomanisnotunknowntothesociety.Itisa
creationofman.Itoccursinallcountriesandinallsocieties.Everythinghas
gainedspeedinmodernizationsoiswiththeinnovationwiththetools
of violence used in crime. Some of them are a hundred percent

effective,easytouse,rapidinactionwithinstantresultsandconvenientfor
escape of perpetrators. Use of acid to commit a crime has geared up in
innovativeways.Aciduseisnotnewincrimes,butitsjustthatthewayof
doing crime has been reformed. Now it is revolutionized to carnage the
innocentlives.Whatisshockingisthattheseattackshappeninbroadday
light,inbusyandcrowdedplaces.Thestoryinprosecution'scasereflectsone
ofsuchincidentsofacidattack.

2.

Theaccusedisarraignedbytheprosecutiontofacethetrialfor

theoffencespunishableundersections302,326Aand326BoftheIndian
PenalCode,1860(hereinafterreferredtoasI.P.C.).

3.

Theprosecutioncase,ascontainedinthechargesheet,runsas

under
VictimPreetiAmarsinghRathi,ahailing fromNarela atDelhi,
was selected as Nursing Officer in Military Nursing Services held through
ShortServiceCommission.ShewassupposedtojoinNavalOfficeatColaba
asSecondLieutenant.On01/05/2013alongwithherfatherAmarsinghRathi,
heruncleVinodkumarDahiyaandherauntSunitaDahiyaPreetiboardedthe
Garibrath Express for Mumbai from Nizamuddin Station. They arrived in
Mumbai on 02/05/2013. The train reached Bandra Terminal at 8.05 a.m.
AftershealightedfromthetrainandwasgoingalogwithAmarsinghRathi,
ViniodDahiyaandSunitaDahiyasomebodytappedherfrombackside.When

sheturnedbacktheunknownattacker,wearingthescarfonhisfaceandthe
caponhishead,flungsomeliquidonherfromonecontainerhewasholding
andfledfromtheplatform.Herfather,maternalauntandpassersbyalsogot
thespiltofliquid.SameerShaikhwasabottlepickeronplatform.Hewas
neartheboggiefromwhichPreetihadalighted.Asfewdropsfellonhim,he
shoutedbyaskingSalim@Salman,anotherbottlepickerwhowasahead,to
catchthemiscreantwhofled.Thefluidstartedburningtheskinassoonas
fellonthevictimandothers.Father,uncle,auntofPreetiandotherpeopleon
platform sustained injuries out of the acid spill. Amarsingh Rathi and
VinodkumarDahiyaimmediatelyliftedPreetiandcarriedtoStationMaster's
office.AmemowasissuedtotakePreetitoBhabaHospital.Thevictimwas
carried by Vinodkumar Dahiya and Sunita Dahiya to Gurunanak Hospital
withtheassistanceofpoliceconstable.Itwasthenearesthospital.Whilethe
otherinjuredweresenttotheBhabaHospitalbyrailwaypolice.Therailway
policeinformedtherailwaypoliceinspector.Thepoliceofficerdrewthespot
panchanamaofthespotoftheincidentshownbySameerShaikhafterreturn
ofSameerfromhospital.Aplastic'dabba'(container)wasfoundonspotwith
someleftoverfluid.Thefluidspreadedonthegroundandsoilwascollected
withthehelpofcottonswab.Thereweresomeburntpiecesofclothes.Allthe
articlesweresealedandseizedunderspotpanchanama.

4.

After Amarsingh Rathi returned from hospital, he lodged the

police report against unknown person on which FIR no.36 of 2013 was
registeredundersections307,326Aand326BofI.P.C.Preetiwasnotable
tospeakduetosevereburnsonherfaceandneck.Duetothelackofmedical
facilities for treatment and management of Preeti, the doctor from
GurunanakHospitalreferredhertothehospitalhavingfacilitytomanageher
condition.ShewastakentotheMasinaHospital.TheconditionofPreetiwas
seriousduetothesevereacidburns.Immediatelytreatmentbeganforher
injuriesconsideringthemasacidburn.

5.

ThepoliceofficerapproachedPreetiatMasinaHospitaltoget

herstatementrecordedbutshecouldnotspeak.Shecouldcommunicatewith
herparentsanddoctorsbywritingonpiecesofpaper.Shecouldnotseethe
faceoftheperpetratorwhoflungacid.Asketchoftheaccusedwasdrawnon
thebasisofthedescriptiongivenbythewitnesses.On04/05/2013Pawan
Kumar made a phone call to the sister of Preeti namely Tannu to make
inquiryaboutthe healthof Preeti.Atthattimehe was atRohataktaking
education of Bachelor of Technology. Amarsingh Rathi was informed by
Tannu.ThesamewasinformedtotheinvestigatingofficerandPawankumar
was suspected as the perpetrator. He was arrested by the police on
09/05/2013.AftershowingthesketchbyscribblingonpaperPreetidisclosed
thattheperpetratormaybeSatyam,AnkurorPawankumar.Satyamwasalso
interrogated.Preetihadnoloveaffairnorenmitywithanybody.Preetihad

ruledoutthepossibilitythatitwasPawankumarasshehadnottalkedtohim
sincelasttwoyears.

6.

After Preeti was admitted in Masina Hospital, she underwent

surgeriesasshehadTracheooesophagealFistulacausingholeinwindpipe
andfoodpipe.Shewasundercontinuousmedicaltreatmentbytheteamof
doctorstill18/05/2013.Herconditionwasdeteriorating.On18/05/2013for
herfurthertreatmentbythespecialists,shewasshiftedtoBombayHospital.
Shewascontinuouslyonventilator.InBombayHospital,shewastreatedby
theteamofspecialistdoctors.However,shesuccumbedtotheinjuriesafter
thecardiacarreston01/06/2013.DuetothedeathofPreeti,Section307
wasconvertedtosection302ofI.P.C.Postmortemofdeadbodywasdoneby
theteamofdoctors.SamplescollectedduringpostmortemweresenttoFSL
forCAandhistopathology.AfterthereceiptofCAreports,finalcauseofdeath
was opined as 'Septicemia due to acid burn (unnatural)'. The police was
clueless as no information was received to show that Pawankumar was
involved in the crime. The railway police was unable to find any strong
evidence showing his involvement. Amarsingh Rathi also made inquiry by
himselfandfoundthatPawankumarwasatRohatak,intheStateofHaryana,
at the time of incident. He filed an affidavit before the court stating that
PwankumarwasatRohtakatthetimeofincident.Astheinvestigationwas
not progressing in proper direction a writ petition was preferred by

AmarsinghRathiandtheinvestigationwastransferredtoDCB,CID,Mumbai.

7.

During the investigation ofDCB,CIDpolice officersteam was

senttoDelhitomakeinquiryofrailwayticketsofPreetiandofherrelatives.
IntheinquiryofrelativesofPreetii.e.,NituSolankinameofAnkurPanwar,
thepresentaccusedappeared.Whenpoliceapproachedhimhegaveevasive
answerstothequeriesregardinghiswhereaboutson01.05.2013.Therefore,
hewasbroughttoMumbaion17.01.2014.Hewasgivingevasiveanswers
duringinterrogation.Hewashavingburninjuriesonhisboththehands.At
Mumbaihewasarrested.AccusedwassenttotheJ.J.Hospitalformedical
examinationtogetopinionregardingtheoldhealedscarsonhisforearms.
Thosewerefoundascausedbysecondarydropsofacid.Whilehewasin
custodyhisvoluntarystatementundersection27ofIndianEvidenceActwas
recorded.Athisinstancetheplacefromwherehehadobtained acidwas
discovered.ThesellerofacidMukeshBhargavinformedthataccusedAnkur
hadobtainedacidsamplefromhimonthegroundthathehadstartedthe
businessinthenameandstyle'AnkurBatteries'.AfterthearrestofAnkur
Panwarinvestigationgainedmomentum.

8.

Thedetailsofmobilephoneoftheaccusedwerecollected.At

earlystageofinvestigationthestatementsofeyewitnessesandrelativesof
PreetiRathihadbeenrecorded.AfterthearrestofAnkurPanwarthe test

identification parade was arranged for his identification through eye


witnesses. Sameer Shaikh, Salim @ Salman Shaikh, Pawan Malviya and
VinodkumarDahiyaidentifiedtheaccusedasthepersonwhoflungacidover
Preeti. Vinodkumar Dahiya hadseenhim in the train at4.00a.m.while
accusedwasstandingneartoilet.Healsohadtalkedtohim.Atthattime
accusedwasholdingabag.SameerShaikhidentifiedthe'dabba'whichwas
inthehandoftheaccused.MukeshBhargavidentifiedtheaccusedinT.I.
Paradethathehadgiven2kg.sampleofsulphuricacidtoAnkur,theaccused
inthe'dabba'.Said'dabba'wasfoundwithsulphuricacid.ThewordsDIVYA
PHARMACYandnumberB56025wereembossedonthedabba.Statements
ofwitnesseswererecordedwhichunclothedtheunilateralloveofaccused
AnkurforPreetiandthatAnkurhadinformedhisfriendsthathewasgoingto
Mumbaiforhisinterview.

9.

WhenPreetiwasadmittedinMasinaHospitalherclothes and

clothes of Sunita Dahiya, theywere wearing at the time of incident were


seized.AllarticlesseizedunderspotpanchanamaandtheclothesofPreeti
andSunitaDahiyaweresenttoFSLforCA.SamplesofPreeticollectedinthe
hospitalswerealsosentforCA.TheCAreportreceiveddisclosedthepresence
ofsulphuricacidintheclothesofPreeti,inthearticlesseizedfromspotand
inthesamplescollectedfromPreeti'sdeadbody.

10.

After completion of investigation ample evidence was found

againstAnkurtherefore,Pawankumarwasdischargedandchargesheetwas
filed against the accused Ankur Panwar in the court of Additional Chief
MetropolitanMagistrate,37thCourt,Esplanade,Mumbaion09/04/2014.

11.

As the offence punishable under section 302, 326A and

326B of I.P.C. being exclusively triable by the sessions court, it was


committedtothecourtofsessionson28/04/2014.

12.

Whentheaccusedwasproducedbeforethecourt,afterhearing

Special Public Prosecutor Shri Ujjwal Nikam and defence counsel I have
framedthechargeagainsttheaccusedfortheoffenceundersections302,
326Aand326BofI.P.C.videExh.7Itwasreadoverandexplainedtothe
accused.HeabjuredtheguiltandclaimedtrialvideExh.8

13.

Prosecutionplacedrelianceontheevidenceofall37witnessesto

proveitscase.Onthecloserofprosecutionevidencestatementofaccused
wasrecordedundersection313ofCodeofCriminalProcedure,1973(inshort
Cr.P.C.).Hedeniedincriminatingcircumstancesappearingagainsthiminthe
evidence. The defence is of simplicitor denial and false implication at the
behest of the father of the victim and police machinery to save the real
accused. No defence witness is examined in defence. By way of written

statement Exh.207A accused reiterated his defence that due to oil burn
injuries the old healed scars were caused and that Preeti died of medical
negligence.

14.

On these facts of the case, following points arise for my

determinationandIrecordmyfindingsthereonforthereasonsstatedbelow:
Points

Findings

1. Does the prosecution prove that on


01.06.2014 Preeti Rathi died of homicidal
death?

Yes

2. Does the prosecution prove that the


accused intentionally flung acid on Preeti
Rathi on 02.05.2014 at Bandra Railway
Terminus, platform no.3 at about 8.00 a.m.
causing her death on 01.06.2014 and
committedmurder punishableunder Section
302oftheIndianPenalCode,1860

Yes

3. Does the prosecution prove that on


aforesaid date, time and place, during the
course of same transaction, the accused
voluntarilycausedgrievoushurtbythrowing
acidon(1)AmarsinghSedharamRathi,aged
56years(2)Smt.SunitaVinodkumarDahiya,
aged 35 years,(3) Smt. Sudeshakumari
Dipendar Singh, aged 24 years and (4)
Sameer Shamsuddin Shaikh, aged 22 years
andtherebycommittedanoffencepunishable
underSection326AoftheIndianPenalCode,
1860?

No

4. Does the prosecution proves that on Yes. Injuries caused to


aforesaid date, time and place accused Amarsingh Rathi and
voluntarily threw acid with intention of Sameer Shaikh are
causing burns and caused burns to(1) proved.
AmarsinghSedharamRathi,aged56years(2)
Smt. Sunita Vinodkumar Dahiya, aged 35
years,(3) Smt. Sudeshakumari Dipendar

10

Singh, aged 24 years and (4) Sameer


Shamsuddin Shaikh, aged 22 years and
thereby committed an offence punishable
underSection326BoftheIndianPenalCode,
1860?
5.Whatorder?

Convictedasperfinal
order.
REASONSFORFINDINGS

15.

In support of its case the prosecution examined in all 37

witnessesoutofthecitedwitnessesinthelistasunder:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
(26)
(27)
(28)
(29)
(30)

PW1
PW2
PW3
PW4
PW5
PW6
PW7
PW8
PW9
PW10
PW11
PW12
PW13
PW14
PW15
PW16
PW17
PW18
PW19
PW20
PW21
PW22
PW23
PW24
PW25
PW26
PW27
PW28
PW29
PW30

VasudevChatursinghBaberwal
Exh.27
AnandAnilSandhe
Exh.33
ShreeyaDeepakSawant
Exh.38
RajuAdalatYadav
Exh.40
MahadevRaghuSapkal
Exh.44
SameerShamshuddinShaikh
Exh.46
Salim@SalmanNurulislamShaikh
Exh.47
PhirojIsmailManiyar
Exh.48
PankajVajubhaiMalavdiya
Exh.49
RavikumarMansing/TansingBadshah
Exh.62
VinodkumarDharampalsingDahiya
Exh.69
AnilShankarraoDeshmukh
Exh.73
NituLalitSolanki
Exh.75
AmarsinghSedharamRathi
Exh.76
RamkumarShamlalBhargav
Exh.78
MukeshRamkumarBhargav
Exh.83
SubhashPandharinathBhamre
Exh.87
SitaramChandrakantGaikwad
Exh.90
N.K.Thakur(Tahasildar)
Exh.94
Dr.AmitaShivyogiHiremath
Exh.98
GajananShesraoChavan
Exh.100
Dr.AniketPrakashPote
Exh.106
Dr.ShrikantSrikumarPai
Exh.109
NivruttiKrishnaKatkar
Exh.111
Dr.BhalchandraGopinathChikhalkar
Exh.123
Dr.ManishaShamBharti
Exh.133
Dr.DhavalMujibhaiGandhi
Exh.137
Dr.AshokkumarS.Gupta
Exh.153
VirendraVishnuChavan
Exh.155
NavnathArjunGhuge
Exh.159

11

(31)
(32)
(33)
(34)
(35)
(36)
(37)
16.

PW31
PW32
PW33
PW34
PW35
PW36
PW37

VijayRaghunathDhopavkar
NasirAhmedAbdulHamidShaikh
DeoramDagduWadmare
AshokSurgondaKhot
VijayShamraoDhamal
PrafullaChandrakantBhosale
RehmanEhnullaShaikh

Exh.162
Exh.164
Exh.170
Exh.173
Exh.180
Exh.183
Exh.197

Importantdocumentsrelieduponbytheprosecutionarelistedas:
(1)

Exh.28

(2)

Exh.34

(3)

Exh.41

(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)

Exh.42
Exh.45
Exh.45A
Exh.49

(8)
(9)

Exh.57
Exh.61

(10) Exh.63
(11) Exh.65
(12) Exh.68
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)

Exh.74
Exh.77
Exh.77A
Exh.80to82
Exh.88
Exh.91
Exh.96(colly.)

(20) Exh.99
(21) Exh.103
(22) Exh.107
(23) Exh.110

Panchanamaregardingseizureof
clothesofPreeti.
Panchanamaofresealinganddesealing
ofArt.C
Memorandumofconfessionalstatement
ofaccuseddated19.01.2014
Panchanamadated21.01.2014
SpotPanchanama
Map
Arrestoftheaccusedandseizure
Panchanamaofmobilephoneofthe
accused.
Arrestform
Inquestpanchanama(admittedby
defence)
Letterdated24/02/2014
Certificate
Chartofstationwisedetentionoftrain
no.12910.
MemogivenforBhabaHospital
Report/FIR
PrintedFIRformat
LicenseofBhargavChemicals
TheExtract
Memotocarryinjuredtohospital
Panchanamaandthechartof
identification.
MedicalcertificateissuedbyPW20
Letterdated14/02/2014withthe
endorsementofreceipt byDepartment
clerkMr.Kendre.
Masinahospital'sadmissionpaper
OriginalMedicalpaperofpatient(4
pages)

12

(24) Exh.112
(25)
(26)
(27)
(28)
(29)
(30)
(31)

Exh.116
Exh.117
Exh.118
Exh.119
Exh.120
Exh.121
Exh.124

(32) Exh.125to129
(33) Exh.130
(34) Exh.134
(35) Exh.135
(36) Exh.136
(37) Exh.138
(38) Exh.139
(39) Exh.140
(40) Exh.141
(41) Exh.142
(42) Exh.143
(43) Exh.144
(44) Exh.145
(45) Exh.146
(46) Exh.147
(47) Exh.148
(48) Exh.149
(49) Exh.150
(50) Exh.151
(51) Exh.152(colly.)
(52) Exh.154

LettertodelieverthearticlesatFSL,
Kalina,Santacruz,withreceiptof
endorsementfromFSL.
CAreportdated26.07.2013
CAreportdated30.07.2013
CAreportdated30.07.2013
CAreportdated30.07.2013
CAreportdated01.08.2013
CAreportdated03.06.2013
Memorandumofpostmortem
examination.
TheofficecopiesofletterstoCA
Thefinalcauseofdeathcertificate
InjuryCertificateofAmarsingh
Chhedaram Rathi.
Injury Certificate of Sudesh Dipendra
Singh
InjuryCertificateofShamsuddinSameer
Shaikh
MedicalcasepapersofPreetiinMasina
Hospital.
Medicalcasepaperdated04.05.2013of
7.00p.m.to11.00p.m.
Medicalcasepaperdated06.05.2013
Medicalcasepaperdated06.05.2013
Medical case paper dated 07.05.13 &
08.05.13
Medical case paper dated 08.05.13 &
09.05.13
Medicalcasepaperdated09.05.2013
Medicalcasepaperdated10.05.2013&
11.05.2013
Medicalcasepaperdated11.05.2013&
12.05.2013.
Medicalcasepaperdated12.05.2013&
13.05.2013.
Medicalcasepaperdated12.05.2013
Medicalcasepaperdated13.05.2013&
14.05.2013
Medicalcasepaperdated14.05.2013
Medicalcasepaperdated14.05.2013
Medicalcasepapers(paperalreadyexh.
138to150)
MedicalreportfromBombayHospital

13

(53) Exh.163
(54) Exh.165
(55) Exh.167
(56)
(57)
(58)
(59)

Exh.168
Exh.178
Exh.179
Exh.185

(60) Exh.186
(61) Exh.187
(62) Exh.192
(63) Exh.194
(64) Exh.203(coll)
(65) Exh.204
(66) Exh.205
(67) Exh.210
(68) Exh.213A
(69) Exh.213B
17.

Entryinregisterforacidsamples
Letterinrespectofforwardingthe
samplesofstomachcontents,liver,
spleen,bloodandscalphair.
Forwardingletterofforwardingsamples
forhistopathology.
TheRailwayreservationchart.
Frontpageoflockupregister.
entryinlockupregister.
RequisitiontoTahasildarregardingT.I.
parade
LettertoJailSuperintendentregarding
T.I.Parde
Letter received from Tahasildar dated
06.02.2014.
Office order regarding constitution of
investigationteam.
Casediarydated09.05.2013
Medicalcasepapersoftreatmentof
PreetiRathiinBombayHospital.
Form.Simcardapplicationformof
accused.
DocumentwithExh.204.
CertifiedcopyofFIRno.36/2013dated
02.05.2013.
Certifiedcopyofreplytobail
applicationofPwankumar.
Certifiedcopyofbailapplicationof
Pawankumar.

Listofarticles:
(1)Art.A(colly.)
(2)Art.B(colly.)
(3)Art.C
(4)Art.D
(5)Art.E
(6)Art.F
(7)Art.G
(8)Art.H
(9)Art.I(colly.)
(10)Art.J

Clothesofvictim(Art.5)
Clothesofmaternalauntofvictim(Art.6)
Whiteplasticcontainer/'dabba'
OneIDEAsimcard
OneblackcolouredNokiamobilehandset.
OneDocomosimcard
OneNokiacompanybatteryofmobilephone.
Airtelsimcard
FourcurrencynotesofRs.10/fivecoinsofRs.
10/insideonecurrencynoteofRs.5andone
coinofRs.5/andonecoinofRs.1/
Moneypurse

14

(11)Art.K(colly.)

(12)Art.L
(13)Art.M
(14)Art.N

18.

TheHDFCvisacard,IdentitycardofPark
HyattGoaResortandSpa,inthenameof
AnkurPanwar,onepassportsizephoto,10
visitingcards,onepocketcalenderfortheyear
2010,onepocketcalenderfortheyear2011,
oneleafletofHotelHyatt,onecardwith
Laxmiphoto,fourbusticketseachRs.15/,
OneconfidentialinformationfromAxisBank
withpersonalidentificationnumber,One
laundrybillofParkHyattGoawithsome
phonenumberonthebackside,onepaper
withprintednameAnkurPanwaratpark
Hyatt,GoaResortandSpa,onepieceofpaper
fromNotebookwithcontents,''Iqbal
Singh.dhanuk@yahoo.com.''
Thecottonswabs(offluidfromspot)
Cottonswabs,(soilcollectedfromspot)in
plasticcover.
Burntpiecesofclothesseizedfromspot.

This case is based on occular, medical, circumstantial and

forensicevidence.Theevidenceleadbytheprosecutioncanbecategorizedin
followingmanner.
1.Eyewitnesses
2.CircumstantialEvidence
3.MedicalEvidence
4.ForensicEvidenceand
5.Otherevidence
1.

EYEWITNESSESOFTHEACTUALINCIDENT:

19.

Beforebeginningwiththediscussionitisimportanttomention

herethatthedefencecounselsubmittedthatdefencehasnoobjectiontoread
theboggieasJ1whichiswronglyrecordedasG1atsomeplacesinthe
depositionofsomeofthewitnesses.

15

20.

BottlepickersPW6SameerShaikhandPW7Salimworkingfor

Naseem Chacha were working on Bandra Terminus on 02/05/2013. PW6


was at platform no.3 at 8.00 a.m. as Naseem Chacha allotted boggies to
collectbottles.HewasgivenJ1toJ4.HewasstandingnearJ2aspeople
weregettingdown.OnegirlalightedfromJ2.Someotherpeoplewerealso
gettingdownfollowingher.Therefore,hewenttowardsJ3.HesawPreeti.
Oneboycamefrombacksidebygivingpushtohimandwentahead.Theboy
washoldingthe'dabba'.Theboytappedthegirlbyhishandonwhichshe
turnedback.Theboyflungthecontentsofdabbaonthefaceofthegirl.It
also spilt on his hands. PW6 shouted and asked Salman PW7, who was
aheadhim,bysaying'pakadsaleko'.Theattackerturnedback.Thecaphe
waswearingfelldownandscarfslideddown.Therefore,PW6sawhim.The
partofhishandwheretheliquidhadfallanstartedburning.Salimranbehind
theboybutthereaftercamebackandtoldthattheboyescaped.WhenPW6
sawPreeti,thegirl,herfacewasburntduetothesameliquid.PW6was
taken to Bhaba Hospital by police where he was medically examined and
treated.

21.

StatementofPW6wasrecordedonthesamedayoftheincident

i.e.,on02/05/2013.Inthecrossexaminationheexplainedthatfirstlyhewas
takentothespotandthereafterhisstatementwasrecorded.Hisshirtwasnot
seized.Policedidnotaskforhisshirtwhichhewaswearingatthetimeof

16

incidentandwasburntduetotheliquid.
22.

PW7Salim@SalmanKhanwasonBandraterminusalongwith

PW6.HeheardthescreamsofthegirlfromtheplatforminfrontofBoggie
no.J2.ImmediatelyheheardshoutofPW6whosaid''SalimpakadSaleko''.
Hesawoneboyrunningfromhissideandwentahead.Hefollowedhim.The
boysawbehindbyturningbackhishead.PW7couldseethefaceashisscarf
hadcomedown.PW7chasedhimbuthefelldownandtheboydisappeared.
Therefore,hecamebacktoSameer.HesawthegirlandSameer.Hecould
smellthefluidasacid.Thegirlsfacewasinjuredduetotheacidflung.Italso
spattered on the hands of Sameer. He described the boy as like with fair
complexion,slimbuiltandofhisheighti.e.,about5.5inches.

23.

ItisadmittedinthecrossexaminationthatPW7wasstanding

nearJ1boggieandSameerwasnearJ2aheadhim.Heranforabout1520
feetdistance.Otherpassengersalsotriedtocatchtheperpetrator.

24.

ClearingforwardingagentoftheparcelsPW9,PankajMalviya,

usedtobepresentatBandraTerminus.HewasacquaintedwithPW6and
PW7.On02.05.2013at8.00a.m.hewasstandingnearplatformno.3with
hisparcelswhenGaribrathExpressarrivedfromDelhi.J2boggiwasinfront
ofhim.Passengerswerealightingfromthetrain.Hesawoneboytyingscarf
onhisface,wearingcapandholdingonewhitecolouredplasticdabbalike

17

chyavanprashcontainerwasgoingtowardsengine.Heprominentlynoticed
himashewaswearingcapandtyingscarf.Theboywentandtappedonegirl
fromherbackside.Thegirlturnedback.Suddenlytheboyhurledliquidfrom
that'dabba'onthefaceofthatgirl.Hethrewdabbaandranawaytowards
engine.Thegirlscreamed.Sameershoutedandsaid'pakdopakdo'.PW9too
ranafterthatboy.Theboyturnedbacktwice.PW9couldseehisfaceasthe
caphadfallenandthescarfhadslithereddown.Buttheboyranaway.PW9
camebacktothegirlandsawburnsonherfaceandbody.Threetofour
personsreceivedburninjuriesintheincident.Sameeralsoreceivedburns.
PW9 had identified the same assailant in Arthur Road Jail in test
identificationparadeheldon12/02/2014.Healsoidentifiedhiminthecourt
room.HeidentifiedArt.Casthesame'dabba'theaccusedwasholdingatthe
timeoftheincident.

25.

It is emerged in the crossexamination he works on railway

station.Hehadcollectedparcelsonthatday.After5to6peoplealightedthe
accused alighted from the boggie. Sameer was walking when the incident
took place. The girl was with 5 to 6 persons on the platform. She was
standingwhentheaccusedtappedher.Heheardtheshouts'pakdo,pakdo'
fromSameer.Hedidnottellanythingtothepoliceimmediately.Ashesaw
theincidenthewasfeelinggiddyandtherefore,hewentbacktohome.He
gotscaredofthesuddenincident.

18

26.

Uncle of Preeti, PW11, Vinodkumar Dahiya alongwith Preeti,

Amarsingh rathi and Sunita Dahiya started from Delhi on 01/05/2013.


ReservationofPreetiwasinA/Cchaircarboggie.HeandhiswifeSunita
werehavingreservationinJ2seatno.26and27whilePreetiandherfather
werehavingreservationinJ4seatno.65and71.Theyadjustedtheseats
withcopassengers.PreetiandherfathercametoJ2.

27.

Inthetrainat4.00p.m.on02/05/2013PW11wenttotoilet

towardsJ3coach.One2025yearsoldboy,withheight5feet2or3inches,
was standing near the door of toilet. He was wearing yellow Tshirt and
holdingoneredbaginhishand. PW11toldthatboytogoandsitathis
placeaskingwhyhewasstandingthere.Theboytoldhimthathegotbored
therefore,isstandingoutside.WhenPW11askedhimtillwhereheisgoing
heansweredthatuptothelastdestinationofthetrain.TheboyaskedPW11
thatwhereheisgoingandheinformedthatuptoBandraterminus.

28.

At8.00a.m.PW11alightedthetrainafterhiswifeSunita,Preeti

andherfather.Hewascarryingluggage.3to4passengerscamebetweenhim
andthem.Hewouldhavewalkedtwotothreestepswhenhesawoneboy
wearingcapandtyingscarfonfacehurledsomethingfromthebox/dabbaon
Preeti.Preetishouted.Somebodyelsealsoshoutedas'pakdopakdo'.Theboy
whothrewsomethingstartedrunningaway.Hewentbehindtheboywithhis

19

luggage.Theboylookedbehind.Hisscarfhadslideddowntohisneck.The
capwasnotthere.Hesawhisfaceandidentifiedhimasthesameboywith
whomhetalkednearthetoiletinthetrain.PW11couldnotchasehimand
camebacktoPreeti.Preetiwaswithburninjuriesduetosomeacidlikefluid.
Amarsingh,Sunitaandsomeotherpersonsaroundhadalsoreceivedburns
duetospatteringoffluid.PW11andhiswifeferriedPreetitoGurunanak
HospitalatBandra.Henarratedtheincidenttodoctor.Preeticouldnotspeak.
ThedoctoradvisedtoshifthertoMasinaHospitalduetothelackoffacilities
inthathospital.Therefore,hetookhertoMasinaHospital.Afteramonth
Preetidiedoftheburns.

29.

PW11 identified the accused in test identification parade on

12/02/2014.Healsoidentifiedhiminthecourtroom.Accusedwasunknown
to PW11. Vinod kumar had disclosed the incident to the police constable
PW12whowaswithhimwhilecarryingPreetitoGurunanakHospital.The
constablehadsuggestedtotakePreetitoGurunanakHospital.Hedeniedthat
PreetidiedduetothenegligenceofMasinaHospital.

30.

Itistheconsistentevidenceofallfourwitnessesthattheysaw

theaccusedthrowingacidonPreetiandthereafterranaway.Defencecounsel
has not been successful in anyway to discredit the testimony of these
witnesses.

20

2.
31.

CIRCUMSTANTIALEVIDENCE:
1.
FirstInformationReport:
PW14 Amarsingh Rathi, father of Preeti was with Preeti,

Vinodkumar Dahiya and Sunita Dahiya when they travelled by Garibrath


expressfromDelhitoBandraterminus.Aftertheyalightedfromthetrainat
8.00 a.m. hardly he would have walked 10 to 15 steps when he heard
screamsofPreeti.Heturnedbacktolookather.Someacidlikeliquidfellon
hishand,legandbacksideofshoulder.Hesawonepersoncoveringfacewith
scarfandwearingcapwasrunningaway.Hewaswearingyellowshirt.Preeti
was shouting. Amarsingh shouted as ''pakdo pakdo'' and went to Preeti.
VinodDahiyacametoPreeti.Thefluidlikeacidburntface,neckandother
bodypartsofPreeti.PW14andPW11liftedherimmediatelyandtookherto
stationmaster'soffice.Withthehelpofpoliceandstationmastertaxiwas
arranged.PW14askedPW11andhis wifetocarryPreetiimmediatelyto
hospital.Twomorepersons,oneboyandonelady,hadalsoreceivedburns
outofthe fluidflung.PolicetookPW14andthose twopersonstoBhaba
hospital.TheyweregivenmedicaltreatmentatBhabaHospital.Fromthere
hewenttoBandrapolicestationandlodgedFIRvideExh.77.

32.

PW14Amarsinghsawthebacksideoftheaccused.Thewitness

wascrossexaminedonthepointofPawakumarwhowasfirstlyarrestedby
thepoliceandthereafterdischarged.PW14admittedthathefiledaffidavitin
thecourtontheinformationreceivedaboutPawankumarshowingthathe

21

wasnotatthespotoftheincident.Hedisclosedthathewantedtheactual
culprittobetakenintocustody.

33.

PW17 ASI Subhash Bhambre was at Bandra Railway police

stationon02/05/20213.Atabout9.00a.m.policeconstablePW18Sitaram
Gaikwad and Amarsingh Rathi came to him. Amarsingh Rathi lodged the
reportonwhichtheFIRwasregistered.Thestationdiaryentrywasmadeat
serialno.20at10.00a.m.Theoriginalstationdiaryentrywassenttothe
Office of ACP. Other staff was already sent to the spot. He informed the
detection unit about the crime. After registration of crime the FIR was
forwardedtotheMagistrate.ButheadmittedthatinExh.77Athedateand
timeofdispatchtothecourtofMagistrateisnotmentioned.However,he
maintained that it was sent to the Magistrate. The FIR was against the
unknownperson.

34.

Therefore,thefactsarethataftertheincidentFIRwasregistered

reflectingthecompleteincidentanditwasforwardedtoMagistrate.Itisan
unblemishedpieceofevidence.

2.

CarriersofPreetiandotherpersonsinjuredinthe
incident.:

35.

PW12AnilShankarraoDeshmukh,Buckleno.3506wasonduty

till9.00a.m.on02/05/2013atBandraRailwaypolicestation.At8.00a.m.

22

hewasonthebacksideofplatformno.2.Hereportedstationmaster'soffice
aftertheannouncementwasmade.Hesawoneladyintaxiinfrontofstation
master'soffice,wasgroaninginpainduetoacidburns.Stationmastergave
himamemoExh.74tocarryhertoBhabaHospital.VinodkuamrDahiyaand
Sunita Dahiya were with her. They asked him to take Preeti to nearest
hospitaltherefore,theywenttoGurunanakHospital. PW11narratedthe
incidentanddescribedtheboy,theperpetrator,tohim.Firstaidwasgivento
PreetiinGurunanakHospital.FromthereshewasshiftedtoMasinaHospital.
HeinformedBandrapolicestationthatPreetiisadmittedinMasinaHospital.

36.

ItcanbegatheredthatPreetiwascarriedtoGurunanakHospital

though the memo was in the name of Bhaba Hospital. It was so because
PW11wantedtotakePreetitohospitalattheearliest.Theinjuredpersons
werecarriedtoBhabaHospital.

37.

Inspite of having memoofBhaba Hospital as the condition of

PreetiwasserioushetookPreetitothenearesthospitalattherequestofher
relatives.Itwouldhavebeentaken40minutestoreachBhabaHospitalwhile
theyreachedGurunanakHospitalin10to12minutes.

38.

AfterPW12alongwithPreetireachedMasinaHospital,firstlythe

patient was examined and, thereafter, the form of the hospital was filled.

23

VinodDahiyatalkedtothedoctor.Preeticouldnotspeaktothedoctor.

39.

PW18wasatplatformwhowenttothestationmaster'soffice

aftertheannouncementwasmadeon02/05/2013at8.10a.m.Hesawone
lady, one boy and one man injured out of acid attack. Station master
instructedhimtotakethemtothenearesthospitalbyandhandingovera
memotohim.HetookthemtoBhabaHospital,gaveoriginalmemotodoctor
andobtainedendorsementofreceiptonthecopywhichisatExh.91.Oneof
theinjuredwasAmarsinghRathi,whowantedtolodgepolicereport.Other
twowereSudeshaKumariandSameerShaikh.Doctortreatedthem.Atthe
sametimepoliceofficercametothehospital.PW18broughtallthethree
injured person to the Bandra police station and produced before ASI
Bhambre(PW17).

40.

In memo at Exh.91 the names of the injured persons are not

written.OnthewaytohospitalPW18madeinquiryandlearnedtheirnames.
AfterhetookthembacktopolicestationAmarsinghRathilodgedthereport.

41.

Originalmemoisnorproducedonrecord.Itisarguedthatthe

memo is a fabricated document. But the oral testimony remained un


shatteredevenafterthecrossexamination.
3.

SeizureofclothesofPreetiandheraunt:

24

42.

InMasinaHospitalPW3ShreeyaSawant,anurse,wasonduty

on02/05/2013at9.30a.m.whenPreetiwasbroughttothehospital.She
saw Preeti had burns over her face, chest and upperarms. Preeti was
consciousbutwasnotinapositiontospeak.SunitaDahiyaandVinodkumar
Dahiya PW11, were with her. Sunita was also having burns on her body.
Preeti was admitted in hospital. Both were given medical treatment. The
clothesofPreetiwereremovedbyher.ShehandedovertheclothesofPreeti
and Sunita respectively at Art.A(colly) and Art.B(colly.) to reception in
separatebagswhichwereseizedandsealedbythepolice.

43.

PW31wantedtoseize the clothes ofPreetiandSunitawhich

theywerewearing.HeaskedPW3nurseShreeyaSawantforthesame.He
seizedthemvidepanchanamaatExh.28aftertheywereproducedbyPW3.
HeidentifiedtheclothesatArt.AandArt.B.Atthesametimeherecordedthe
statementofShreeyaSawant.

44.

PW1 Vasudev Baberwal was near Masina Hospital on

02/05/2013at10.30a.m.whenwascalledinthehospitalbypoliceofficer
Dhopawkar(PW31).HewastoldabouttheincidentofacidflungonPreeti
RathiatBandrarailwaystation.AnotherpanchBahuddinShaikhwasalso
present.NurseShreeyaSawant(PW3)camewiththeclothesofvictimPreeti
RathiandherauntSunitaDahiya.Thosewerelookingburntandtorn.Those

25

wereseparatelywrapped,sealedandseized.Hesignedthelableswhichwere
affixed on the wrappers of the clothes. He identified the clothes at Art.
A(colly.)astheclothesofPreetiRathiandArt.B(colly)astheclothesofaunt
ofPreeti.

45.

Thus,theclothesofPreetiandheraunttheywerewearingatthe

timeoftheincidentwereseizedandsealed.
4.

Carryingtheseizedarticlesfromspotandclothesfrom
hospitaltoCA:

46.

PW24HeadconstableNivruttiKatkarreceivedthearticlesgiven

tohim byPW31police officer Dhopavkar todeliver the sameatForensic


Science Laboratory Kalina. Those were 6 sealed packets from muddemal
departmentofpolicestationandhedeliveredthesametoforensicscience
laboratoryon03/05/2014.HeobtainedendorsementfromFSLonExh.112,a
forwardinglettergivenbyPIDhopavkar.Thosewerearticleseizedfromspot,
i.e.,whitecontainer,cottonswab,soilandpartiallyburntpiecesofclothes
andtheclothesofPreetiandherauntseizedinMasinahospital.

5.
47.

Spotpanchanama:

A Hamal at Bandra Terminus, PW5 Mahadev Sapkal, was

working as usual on 02/05/2013 at 11.00 a.m. alongwith one Haribhau.


PoliceofficerChavhan(PW29)calledthemnearJitendraTeaStall,obtained

26

their consent for the panchanama going to be prepared of the place in


between platform no. 2 and 3 where attacker had thrown acid on Preeti.
SameerShaikhshowedthespot.Onewhitecolouredplasticdabba/container
withoutlidwaslyingonthespot.'DIVYAPHARMACY'wasembossedonits
bottom.Therewasblackishliquidinit.Policeseizedthedabba/container.The
fluid spreaded on the ground was also collected with cotton swab. Some
piecesofclotheslyingonthespotwerecollected.Thesoilsamplewasalso
taken.Policebroughtonelidfromthecanteennearbyandfixeditonthe
dabba. All the four articles were packed separately and sealed under
panchanama. Map of the spot at45A was drawn.He identifiedArt.'C' as
dabba seized in his presence from the spot. In the crossexamination he
disclosedthattherewasonenumberwrittenonArt.CinEnglish.Butasit
wasinEnglishhedoesn'tknowit.Art'C'hasfiguresB56025embossedonits
bottom.

48.

PW6wascalledatpolicestationtoshowthespotoftheincident.

He showed the spot and police prepared panchanama in the presence of


panchas.Art.Cwasseizedinhispresencefromthespot.HesawArt.Cinthe
handofattackerthrowingfluidonPreeti.

49.

PW29VirendraChauhanwasinformedon02/05/2013at10.30

a.m.bypoliceofficerDhopavkarPW31abouttheacidattackonPreeti.As

27

instructedhewenttothespot,onplatformno.3,anddrewspotpanchanama
ofthespotshownbyPW6Sameer,inthepresenceofpanchwitnessPW5
MahadeoSapkal.ThespotwasinfrontofJitendraJainStallnearsubway
wall.Hesawthefluid/acid,spreadovertheplatformandsomeotherarticles
around.Therewereburntpiecesofclothesandone'dabba'withoutlid.He
seized'dabba',piecesofclothes,simplesoilandcollectedthefluidfromthe
floor.Heobtainedalidfromtheshopinfrontofthespottoclosethemouth
of'dabba'havingrestoffluid.Bysealingallthearticlesinthepresenceof
panchas PW5, Mahadeo Sapkal and Haribhau Kadam he prepared
panchanama. He also prepared rough map 'Exh.45A' of the spot of the
incident.HeidentifiedArt.Cthe'dabba'seizedfromthespot.

50.

WhenthearticlesseizedwereshowntothewitnessPW29the

brown paper wrapper was already turned into pieces and powder due to
corrosivefumes.ThecottonswabcollectedwasidentifiedatArt.L.Thelabel
of the soil collected and sealed when seized was also found turned into
pieces.TheburntpiecesofclothesArt.Mwerewrappedandsealedinpaper
whichwasturnedintopieces.ThelabelisidentifiedasExh.158,however,the
signaturepartwasvanished.

51.

There is no mention of lid in panchanama Exh.45 which was

fixedondabba.PW29learntabouttheincidentabout9.30a.m.Whenhe

28

went to police station PW14 was present at police station. The entry of
articles was made by him in the police station. Non reference of lid is
challengedbythedefencetoinferthatExh.45isafabricateddocument.

52.

Thespotpanchanamadepictsthesceneofoccurrenceandalso

thearticleslyingonspot.SameerwaseyewitnesswhoshowedittoI.O.The
document was prepared on the spot in the presence of panchas. There is
nothing in the crossexamination to doubt the preparation of spot
panchanama.

6)
53.

Disclosureofroleofaccusedinthecrime:

PW13NeetuLalitSolankiwasinfriendlyrelationswithPreeti,

beingofherage.Preetiwasherhusband'saunt's(Bua)daughter.Preetiwas
visitingherhousewhenshewasstudyingnursingcourseintheyear2007to
2011.Sheusedtostayovernightatherhouse.InMarch,2013Preetitoldher
thatoneboynamelyAnkurresidinginB.B.M.B.Colony,wherePreetiwas
residingwithherpatents,wasbehavingdifferently.Preetihadconfidedinher
thatoncehehadstoppedheronthewayandtoldherthathelikedherand
proposedherformarriage.Preetihadspurnedtheproposalandaskedhim
firsttomakehiscareerandthentothinkaboutthemarriage.PW13teased
herthatasshelookedbeautifulhemighthavegonecrazy(diwana).ButPreeti
toldherthatshewasnotamadtomarryhim.

29

54.

Before15to20daysoftheincidentPreetihadmetNitu(PW13).

AtthattimebymakingfunPW13hadaskedherastohowherdiwanawas.
Preetitoldherthatshewasnotmadtolookathim.PreeticonfidedinNitu
thatAnkurhadaskedherastowhyshewasgoingtoMumbaiandhergoing
toMumbaiwasnotgood.AtthattimealsoPreetidefiedhim,toldhimnotto
teachherandaskedhimtomindhisownbusiness.

55.

PW13didnotdisclosethe talkbetweenherandPreetiabout

AnkurtopoliceorrelativesofPreetiasshehadtakenitlightly.Shedisclosed
ittoherfamilymembersbeforeherstatementwasrecorded.Shewasnot
personally knowing as who was Ankur. She did not make inquiry about
AnkurwhenshewenttoPreeti'shouseafterherdeath.

56.

When the investigation was transferred to DCB, CID further

investigationwasinitiatedinwhichallremotechancesofgettingsomeclues
were explored. Neetu Solanki had taken the talk of accused with Preeti
lightly. This is the point were the suspicion against the accused became
strong.

7.

Arrestofaccused:

57.

PW8FirozIsmailManiyarandRashidwerepresentaspanchat

Kurlapolicestation.PW34,PIKhot,PW35policeofficerDhamalandPW36

30

police officer Bhosale were also present. During his deposition PW8
identifiedtheaccusedpresentinthecourtasthepersonwhowasatpolice
station atthattime.Police had told PW8thataccused was brought from
Delhi in the night. Physical search of the accused was conducted. Black
colouredNokiamobilephone,Art.E,someotherarticles,Art.I(colly.)andK
(colly.)were also found with him. Those were sealed and seized and
thereaftertheaccusedwasarrestedvidepanchanamaatExh.57.

58.

PW34PIAshokKhot,fromAntiRobbery,DacoityCell,arrested

and prepared arrest panchanama of Ankur Panwar on 17/01/2014 in the


presenceofpanchasincluding PW8Firoz.Physicalsearchofaccusedwas
conductedandthearticleswereseized.Henoticedoldinjuryscarsonfrontal
aspectofrightforearmoftheaccusedandoneoldinjuryscaronlefthand
whichhementionedinExh.49arrestpanchanama.

59.

Firstly the accused was interrogated at Delhi and on strong

suspicion he wasbroughttoMumbaiandwasarrestedinthepresenceof
panchas.Theoldhealedinjuriesscarsonrightforearmandleftforearmwere
noticedandmentionedinarrestpanchanama.
8)
EvidenceAct.:
60.

Disclosure of facts by the accused u/s. 27 of Indian

On 19/01/2014 PW4 Raju Yadav was called by the police at

31

Kurla Crime Branch Office. PW35 Vijay Dhamal, police officer, one more
panchIrfanandonepersoninveilwerethere.Hisveilwasremoved.Hetold
hisnameasAnkurNarayanlalPanwaranddisclosedhisreadinesstoshowthe
placefromwhereandfromwhomhehadpurchasedacidatNarela,Delhi.
ThememorandumofthestatementofaccusedwasrecordedvideExh.41.On
20/01/2014accused,PW4,withoneotherpanch,andPW35wenttoDelhi
byAugustKrantiTrain.TheyreachedDelhion21/01/2014.AccusedAnkur
tookthemtoonegodownwhichwasclosed.Oninquiryitwasfoundclosed
since 15 to 20 days. Neighbouring person from 'Yash Chemicals' made a
phonecalltotheownerofthegodown,PW15RamKumarBhargav,who
camethere.Theaccusedwasinveil.Accusedstatedthathedidnotpurchase
acid from PW15 but it was from a young man. Accused told that he
purchased acid from the same godown owned by PW15. Son of PW15,
Mukesh,wouldalsositinthegodown/shop.AtthattimeMukeshwasoutof
Delhi.PW15informedthattheyhaveshiftedtheshoptootherplace.The
panchanamaExh.42wasdrawn.InthecrossexaminationofdefencePW4
deniedthathesignedthealreadypreparedpanchanmaatpolicestation,in
Mumbai.

61.

PW15RajkumarBhargavistheowneroftheBhargavChemical

TradingCompanyatPannaPaposhiya,Narela,Delhi.InDecember,2013the
businesswasshiftedtotheindustrialareaatNarela.Heandhissonrunthe

32

businesswhichincludessellofsulphuric acid,hydrochloric acidandnitric


acid.Theyobtainidentificationproofofthecustomerforthesaleofacid.On
21/01/2014hisneighbouringbusinessmanatPannaPaposhiyainformedhim
aboutthevisitofpolicetohisclosedgodown.Whenhewentthere,police
teamwaspresentwithapersonwiththinbuiltinveil.Thepersoninveildid
not identify him but stated about one young person from whom he had
purchased acid for battery purposes. At that time son of PW15, namely
Mukesh PW16, was on tour of Goa with his family. Police prepared the
panchanamaoftheproceedingsvideExh.42.

62.

ThelicenseofthebusinesswasinthenameofwifeofthePW15.

SaiddocumentsareatExh.80,81and82.Theymaintaintheregisteratwork
place.MukeshcamefromGoaandthenwenttoMumbaiafterPW15gave
information. Previously they were not mentioning the ID proof of the
customerinrecordbutnowtheyaredoingsoandkeepingphotocopy.Inthe
year2013theywereaskingonlytoshowtheIDproof.Hehadnotseenthe
accusedbroughtbythepolice.

63.

PW16isasonofPW15.Theyprovidesamplesofacidsfreeof

costforthebusinesspurposestothepartysoastoverifythequalityandplace
theorder.WhenhewasinGoahereceivedaphonecallfromhisfatherwho
informedaboutthevisitofpolice.

33

64.

PW16 came to Mumbai with the register having entries in

respectofsulphuricacid.Therewastheentrydated14/04/2013inthename
of Ankur batterywhohadtaken 2kg.sampleofsulphuric acidfor newly
startedbusinessofthatman.Hemadetheentryinkaccharegisterandalso
saw his ID proof. PW16 had asked the boy for a container to give acid.
Therefore,theboywentbyhisScootyvehicleandbroughtonechyawanprash
'dabba',Art.C,inwhichhegave2kg.Sulphuricacid.Theentryofsample
giventoAnkurisenteredinregisteratExh.163.PW16describedtheboyas
20to25yearsold,wheatishcomplexionandthinbuilt.

65.

ItispointedoutinthecrossexaminationofPW16thathedid

notstatethewords'sale'topolice.Thewitnesswasattackedbythedefencein
thecrossexaminationonthepointthattheentrywaspreparedsubsequently
attheinstanceofpoliceandthatthenameAnkurwasenteredatthesayof
police.TheyhavestoppedgivingsamplessinceJuly2013.

66.

On 19/01/2014 as per voluntary disclosure of the accused

memorandumofstatementatExh.41wasrecorded.Accusedleadpoliceand
panchas to Delhi to Panna Paposhiya from where he obtained acid. The
investigationprogressedthroughPW15,PW16.Exh.163,theregisterwith
the entry of acid sample obtained by the accused from PW16, came in
picture.

34

67.

Muchhueandcrywasmadeinrespectofacidpurchasedandthe

acidsampleobtainedbytheaccused.However,PW16wasfirmonthepoint
thatsampleofsulphuricacidwasgiventotheaccusedanditwasnotsoldto
him.

68.

Thus,theprosecutionsucceededtobringthefactsthatonthe

informationoftheaccused thepoliceteamwenttoDelhitothegodown
shownbytheaccused.Theinvestigationcouldreachtounfoldthefactthat
accusedprocuredacidinArt.Cwhichwasfoundonthespotoftheincident.

9)
69.

Testidentificationparade:

PW6describedtheboyaswiththinbuilt,22to24yearsoldwith

approximateheightof5.4inches.Hewascalledforidentificationparadein
Arthur Road Jail on 12/02/2014 where he identified the accused. He
identifiedtheaccusedAnkurinthecourtasthesameboy.

70.

He identifiedaccusedAnkur inArthur RoadJailafter8to9

monthsoftheincident,aswellasinthecourtroomduringhisdeposition.

71.

WhenPW9identifiedtheaccusedinArthurRoadJailSameer

andSalimalsohadbeentojailforidentificationparade.

35

72.

AtthetimeoftestidentificationparadePW11wasaskedbythe

Magistratetoidentifythepersonhehadseeninthetrainandflingingacidon
Preeti.Heidentifiedtheaccused.

73.

PW16 identified accused in test identification parade on

12/02/2014atArthurRoadJail.

74.

PW19, Narendra Krishna Thakur, was a Naib Tahasildar who

conductedtestidentificationparadeon12/02/2014atArthurRoadJail.On
06/02/2014 Tahasildar, Andheri gave him a letter to conduct test
identificationparade.Accordinglyheinformedthesametothecrimebranch
videExh.95andfixedthedateon12/02/2014.

75.

On12/02/2014PW35,PoliceOfficerDhamal,waspresentwith

thewitnessesforidentificationparadeoftheaccused.AsPW19askedPW35
hadarrangedfor4to5persons.PW19selectedtwoofthemaspanchas.He
enteredthejailwiththewitnessesandthepanchasandinspectedtheroomof
identificationparade.Thewitnessesweremadetositintheroomfromwhere
theidentificationparadewasnotvisiblenoranysoundwasaudiable.Hesaw
the accused and asked jail officer to bring some persons with the similar
physiqueandappearances.Heselecteddummies.Accusedwasaskedtostand
anywhereamongstthedummiesinarow.Hewasalsogivenopportunityto

36

changeclothesand,ifdesires,tochangehispositioninarowofdummies.
Onebyone,bytakingalltheprecautions,witnessesNaseemKhan,Salim@
Salman Shaikh, Sameer Shaikh, Vinodkumar Dahiya, Rohit Singh, Mukesh
BhargavandPankajMalviyawerecalledinparaderoom.Theyallidentified
theaccusedwhowasstandingamongstthedummies.Hepreparedseparate
identification chart for each witness who identified the accused. After
completingtheidentificationparadethepanchanamaExh.96wasprepared.

76.

Allthewitnessesidentifiedtheaccused.Inthecrossexamination

nothingisseentodoubttheidentificationbythesewitnesses.Therewasno
opportunityforthesewitnessestoseetheaccusedbeforetestidentification
paradewasheld.

10)
77.

InvestigatingOfficers:
PW30NavnathGhugewasdirectedbyPW36,ACPBhosale,the

maininvestigatingofficerofthecrimeno.120/2013,whichwastransferred
aspertheordersofHighCourttoDCB,CID,togotoDelhiwithPW35to
recordthestatementofrelativesofPreeti.HealsohadgonetoVTStation
office on 24/02/2014 to make the inquiry of three PNR numbers and
collectedthesamevideExh.66.Itwaswithoutcertificateundersection65B
oftheIndianEvidenceAct.On03/03/2014hecollectedthestatusofGarib
rathExpressranon01/05/2013regardingitsarrivaltime.

37

78.

PW31 Vijay Dhopawkar received phone call from PW17 ASI

Bhambreat8.30a.m.informingthatoneboyflungacidononegirlandthe
girlwastakentoMasinaHospital.Helearntthatotherinjuredpersonswere
takentoBhabaHospital.Afterreceivingtheinformationheinformedtoguard
and to secure the spot and deputed the staff at 8.30 a.m. itself. After he
reachedpolicestationat9.00a.m.hewenttotheMasinaHospitalwithstaff
carryingthearticlesrequired.Preetiwasadmitted inICU.PW31mether
andtriedtomakeinquirybutshewasunabletospeak.Doctorinformedthat
duetoingestionofacidshewasunabletospeak.PW17informedhimthat
herecordedthestatementofAmarsinghRathiandregisteredFIRno.36/13
undersection307,326Aand326BofI.P.C.ImmediatelyheaskedPW29
Virendra Chauhan to go to the spot for spot panchanama. In the hospital
PW11 Vinodkumar and his wife Sunita were present. He recorded their
statements.

79.

PW31wasvisitingMasinaHospitaldailybutcouldnotrecord

the statement of Preeti as her condition was critical. He recorded the


statements of other witnesses. On 27/05/2013 he handed over the
investigation to railway crime branch. On 05/05/2013 PW12 PC Anil
Deshmukhhadhandedhimoverthecopyofmemogivenbystationmaster,
Exh.74. He had got the sketch of the perpetrator prepared during the
investigation.

38

80.

C.C.T.V.Cameraswereinstalledontheplatform.C.C.T.V.Footage

wascollectedandshowedtoPW11Vinod.HeclarifiedthatastheC.C.T.V.
imageswerenotclearhedidnotshowittoanybodyelse.Defencetriedto
bringthattheC.C.T.V.footagearedeliberatelynotbroughtintheevidence.

81.

It was also challenged by the defence that the station diary

entriesarenotmaintainedtocorroboratetheinvestigation.

82.

PW32 received the investigation from Bandra Railway police

station on 27/05/2013. On 01/06/2013 Preeti died therefore, he added


section302ofI.P.C.inthecrime.HesentthesamplesofPreetireceivedfrom
J.J.HospitaltoFSL,KalinaforCAandforhistopathologytoJ.J.Hospital.On
thesamedayhehandedovertheinvestigationtoPW33PIWadmare.Atthat
timePawanGehalanwasincustody.HeadmittedthenameofPawankumar
appearinginExh.168railwaychart.

83.

PW36 was the head of the investigating team constituted by

DCB,CID. He was ACP attached tocrime branch. During investigation he


found the location of the phone number of the accused with Garibrath
ExpressfromNizamuddintoBandraTerminus.Therefore,theaccusedwas
interrogated. After the arrest of the accused he sought permission of the
court to conduct test identification parade. A letter was received from

39

Tahasildar on 06/02/2014 regarding the T. I. parade scheduled on


12/02/2014.Thewitnessesidentifiedtheaccused.HeappointedAPIDhamal
PW35toholdT.I.Parade.

84.

Pawankumarwasnotfoundconnectedtothecrimeashewasat

Rohatak in Haryana State at the time of the incident. Therefore, he was


dischargedwhenchargesheetwasfiledagainstAnkurPanwar.

85.

Various investigating officers investigated the crime. Each has

playeditsroleforthatpartoftheinvestigation.Thepreviousinvestigation
wascarriedoutbyBandraRailwayPoliceStation.Furtherinvestigationwas
carried out by DCB, CID. All the documents prepared by Bandra Railway
PoliceofficersinvestigationareusedbyDCB,CIDastheywere.Thefurther
investigationhasgotconnectedtoitafterthearrestoftheaccused.Thoughit
ischallengedbythedefencecounselthatallthedocumentsarefabricatedno
suchpossibilityisshowneventodoubtthedocumentsandtheinvestigation.

3.
86.

MEDICALEVIDENCE:
It is material piece of corroborative evidence regarding the

injuriescausedtotheinjuredwitnessesandPreetiaswellascauseofdeathof
Preeti.As wellitis equallyclinching pieceofevidence as regards the old
healedinjuriesscarsonthehandsandchestoftheaccused.

40

1.Medicalexaminationofinjuredwitnesses:
87.

PW26 Dr. Manisha Bharati was in the Bhabha Hospital on

02/05/2013whenAmarsinghRathi,SudeshaSinghandSameerShamsuddin
Shaikhwerebroughttothehospital.SheexaminedAmarsinghRathifirstlyat
8.50a.m.andnoticedsuperficialtodeepburnsoverupperback,right and
lefthandandleftthigh.SudeshaSinghwaswithdeepburnsoverleftarm
and forearm and left thigh calculating it 8 to 10 % burns. Sameer
ShamsuddinShaikhexaminedat9.06a.m.waswiththeburninjuriesover
boththeforearmsandleftshoulder. Itwas 4to5%burninjuries.The
certificateatExh.134,135and136wereissuedbyherforAmarsinghRathi,
SudeshSinghandSameerShaikhrespectively.Sheopinedthattheinjuries
canbecausedbythrowingacid.

88.

ItisbroughtinthecrossexaminationthatinMLCregisterthe

entryofpatientsaremadeatnumber6256,6257and6258andaccordingly
Exh.134,135 and136were prepared. The patients were alsoseen by Dr.
SandeepKale.Thediscrepanciesinthesequenceofexaminationofpatientsis
explained by PW25 that when the patient is brought the person
accompanyinggoestoOPDtogetthenumberandtheyexaminethepatient
meanwhile.Shedeniedthatshehadnotexaminedthepatients.

89.

Difference in sequence of examination of injured person and

respectiveMLCnumbercannotfalsifytheexaminationdoneandtheinjuries

41

noticed.

90.

Thus, it is established that Sameer, Sudesha Kumari and

AmarsinghRathiwereinjuredoutofacidburns.

2.MedicaltreatmentofPreeti:
i.GurunanakHospital
91.

PW23wasacasualtymedicalofficerinGurunanakHospitalon

02/05/2013.at8.30a.m.whenPreetiwasbroughtbypoliceandrelatives
i.e.,auntanduncle.Itwasinformedthatataround8.15a.m.therewasan
acidattack.HenoticedburnsoverthefaceofPreetialongwiththroat,trunk
andrightupperlimb.Hemonitoredhervitals,startedRingerslactatefluid
and informed the relatives about the lack of facilities in the hospital for
proper management. He asked them to shift her to other hospital. Her
relativestook hertootherhospital.ThepapersatExh.110arethepapers
preparedatGurunanakHospital.Theoriginalpaperswerehandedovertothe
relativesofthepatientandthecarboncopieswerekeptinthehospital.He
explainedthatasthecarbonwasnotproperlyplacedbelowtheoriginalpaper
thecontentswerenotproperlycopiedtherefore,hewrotethemissingportion
bypeninhishandwritingoncarboncopyatExh,.110onreverseside.

92.

In crossexamination he contended that the contents are more

importantthantoseewhetherwrittenincarbonorbypen.Doctorsdonot

42

waitforthedetailsfromtherelativesbutstartexaminingthepatient.Hence,
mentionedthatitwastheattackbytheunknownassailants.Hedidnotfindit
necessarytofillallthecolumnsintheform.Hehadexaminedthepatient
completely.Itisemergedthathegaveprioritytothemedicaltreatmentofthe
patientandnottothepaperformalities.

ii.MasinaHospital:
93.

PW22Dr.AniketPotewasinMasinaHospitalwherePreetiwas

broughttothehospitalbyherunclePW11andpoliceconstableat9.30to
10.00 a.m. Preeti had chemical facial burn injuries with injuries on neck,
shoulder, chest and back. The history recorded in Exh.107 was given by
VinodkumarDahiya.Preetiwasgivingheadnods.Therefore,consideringthe
statementofVinodDahiyacorrecthewrotehernameinthecolumnofname
of informant. Preeti was not stable, unable to speak and had difficulty in
breathing. Her tracheostomy was done. She had internal injuries and was
unable to speak as mucosa was edematous. The endoscopy was done on
18/05/2013asshehadtroubledbreathing.Tracheooesophagealfistulawas
noticedonendoscopytherefore,shewasreferredtoBombayhospital.

94.

ItisaffirmedincrossexaminationthatasPreetiwasfoundwith

Tracheooesophagean Fistula she was referred to BombayHospital. PW22


filedaseparateformatExh.108withdetailsofburnsofPreeti.

43

95.

WhenPreetiwasbroughttotheMasinaHospitalshewasfirstly

treated on emergency basis and thereafter the admission process and


preparationofpaperswasdone.ThepapersofGurunanakHospitalreceived
byMasinaHospitalwerenotgivenbyPW22topolice.

96.

PW27 Dr. Dhaval Gandhi, an honourary plastic surgeon in

MasinaHospital,treatedPreetifrom02.05.2013to18.05.2013.Shewason
ventilator support. On 18/05/2013, her general condition was poor. Dr.
KapadiyaadvisedendoscopytoruleoutthepossibilityofTracheoesophageal
fistula.InendoscopyTracheoesophagealfistulawasfoundandDr.Kapadiya
advisedtoconsidershiftinghertothespecializedcentertodealwithTracheo
esophagealfistula.Becauseofacidtheliningofthetracheaandesophagus
weredamageddevelopingcommunicationbetweenthemduetowhichshe
wasnotabletobreathandwaskeptonventilator.

97.

From02/05/2013Dr.Gandhiwasintheteamofdoctorstreating

Preeti.PlasticSurgeonDr.SuhasAbhyankar,ENTSurgeonDr.NitinGupta,
OphthalmologistDr. Yasmin Bhagat, Surgeon and Endoscopy SurgeonDr.
Kapadiya,IntensivistDr.AzizUllaandDr.Ansariwerewithhimintheteam.
Dr. Gandhi examined Preeti first in the point of time in hospital on
02/05/2013.HecalledDr.NitinGupta.Preetiwasconscious,respondingto
verbal commands butunable tospeak.There was bleeding throughryles

44

tube. (According to medical dictionary Ryles tube is commonly used for


gastric aspiration or feeding purpose in hospitals. It has then bore and 3
markingsatvariousplacestoindicatethetipoftubeinstomatch,nextto
indicatebodyofstomatchandthirdonetoindicatetipofpylorus(thesmall
narrowsectionofthestomatchthatjoinsthefirstpartofthesmallintestine).
Therewereburnsoneye,nose,ear,mouth,oralcavity,lips,neck,leftand
rightupperlimbs,chestandabdominal,frontandback.Allweredeepburns.
Rightsidevisionwasabsentduetoburnswhilewithlefteyevisionshecould
countfingersonly.Atthattimeheassessed20to25%deepacidburns.The
medicalcasepapersofthehospitalareatExh.138inwhichhementioned
aboutthehistoryofhomicidalchemicalburns.

98.

PW27 explained that firstly when the patient is brought they

writethetechnicalwordslikeaccidentalburnsbutthereaftertheywritedown
according to the history given. As the condition of Preeti was serious on
18.05.2013shewasreferredtoBombayHospitalforbettertreatmentunder
theguidanceofDr.AshokGuptaPW28,aseniorplasticsurgeon.

99.

InthecrossexaminationitiscroppedupthatPW27hadseen

the patient daily. Sometimes he was informed telephonically about the


conditionofPreeti.LikewiseDr.Abhyankarwasinformedtelephonically.He
admitted that the team doctors were telephonically informed on many
occasionsbutdeniedthattheydidnotvisitthepatient.

45

100.

Thefindingsmentionedinthereportarecorelatedwithclinical

findingsandotherreports.Therewasbleedinginesophagusandtheywere
continuously removing the same. PW27 denied the medical negligence of
MasinaHospitalinthetreatmentofPreeti.

iii.BombayHospital:
101.

PW20 Dr. Amita Hiremath was at Bombay Hospital on

18/05/2013whenPreetiwasadmittedwiththehistoryofacidburnsbrought
fromMasinahospital.Herconditionwascritical.Shehadburnsovertheface,
oral cavity, chest, upper extremities, airways, lungs and upper gastro
intestinal tract and was critical. She was on ventilator, had Tracheo
oesophagealfistula,wasonInotropicsupportandhaddevelopedsepsisand
multipleorganfailure.PreetiwasunderthecareofDr.AshokGuptaPW28
sinceheradmission.PW20,Dr.AmitYadav andDr.BinitaRautwerethe
teamofdoctorstreatingPreetiandreportingDr.Gupta.Preetiwasreferredto
various specialist like chest, physician, gastroenterologist and general
surgeons.ThemedicalrecordoftreatmentisatExh.203(pages1to243)

102.

PW20issuedcertificateatExh.99inrespectofthetreatmentof

PreetiafterthedeathofPreeti.Shewascrossexaminedtoelicitoutthatthe
medicaltreatmentgiventoPreetiwasnotproper,therecordwasnoproperly
maintained in respect of her treatment and Exh.203 is a set of fabricated
documents.Butnomedicalnegligencenorimproperrecordingisbroughton

46

recordtoaffectthe evidenceordoubtthemedicaltreatmentgivenorthe
genuinenessoftherecord.

103.

PW28Dr.AshokkumarGupta,whohadhandled8,000to10,000

casesofplasticsurgery,treatedPreetiinBombayHospital.Henoticedlossof
visionofrighteyeofPreetiwithlossofupperandlowereyelids.Onlefteye
therewasperceptionoflightbutnotoftheobject.Deepburnsonherface
withthickeschar(thickeningduetoburns)onupperlip,rightsideofface
and right ear, deep burns on right hand with eschar was noticed.
Tracheostomy was already done. Chest condition was poor. On CTscan of
chest severe edema in trachea and esophagus was noticed. There was
communication between esophagus and left main bronchus. Due to acid
infusedinsidetherewasinflammationoflungscausingpneumonitisofthe
rightupperandmiddle,andleftlowerlobeoflungs..Preetiwasnotableto
speak. All the specialist and nutritionist decided firstly to maintain her
condition and general parameters. Due to inability to swallow, because of
injurytofoodpipe,aminorsurgeryofJejunoctomywasdonetoincrease
feedingandnutritionalsupport. Aspirationgastronomywasdonetodrain
outthesecretionandaircomingfromlungstostomachbecauseofthefistula.
On broncoscopy broncoesophageal fistula was found approximately 1 cm.
longat7to8O'clockpositiononposterialwallofthe leftmainbroncus.
Normallythereisnosuchcommunicationasthesetwopipesaredifferent.

47

Thefloorofthemouth,tongue,hardpalate andvocalcordwereseverely
damaged. Because of the critical condition plastic surgery could not be
performed. A report of examination and the measures taken for medical
managementandthetreatmentgiventoPreetitillherdeathon01/06/2013
Exh.154waspreparedbyDr.AshokGupta.Defencecouldnotelicitanything
inthecrossexaminationofPW28tobringaboutthenegligenceonthepart
of doctors. He is a senior and experienced surgeon who considered all
parametersofPreeti'shealth.

104.

TheprosecutionbroughtthecompletetreatmentofPreetisince

aftertheincidenttillherdeath.GurunanakHospitalhadnofacilityforthe
medicalmanagementofPreetitherefore,shewascarriedtoMasinaHospital.
Till18/05/2013theteamofdoctorstookalleffortstoimprovethecondition
of Preeti. Due to inhalation and ingestion of acid edematous mucosal
secretionwascomingoutcontinuouslythroughrylestube.Shecouldnotget
recoveredtherefore,forherbettermanagementshewasshiftedtoBombay
Hospital.TeamofdoctorsatBombayHospitalwererequiredfirstlytotake
effortstomaintainherparameters.Duetohighdoseofacidshecouldnot
reviveherhealthandsuccumbedtotheinjuries.Nonegligenceisseenonthe
partofanyofthehospitalsnorthedoctors.

3)

Memorandum of postmortem, inquest panchanama and cause of

48

deathofPreeti:
105.

PW25 Dr.Bhalchandra Gopinath Chikhalkar conducted

postmortemofthedeadbodyofPreetion01/06/2013.Theinjuriesnoticed
byhimonthedeadbodywereburninjuriesoverfaceandneckwhichwere
deepburnsonchestandabdomen,rightandleftupperlimb,rightandleft
lowerlimbandback.Itwaswithsuperficialtodeep26%burn,withpresence
ofzoneofinflammation.Theinjuriesonfaceandchestweresufficientto
causedeath.Heopinedprovisionalcauseofdeathasevidenceofsepticemia
with pulmonary consolidation with pulmonary hemorrhage with CPVC
(ChronicPassiveVenusCongestion)liverinahospitalizedcaseofsuperficial
todeepburns.Dr.ThubeandDr.Waghmarewerealsowithhim.Thesamples
andviscerawerepreservedforCA.Memorandumofpostmortemexamination
Exh.124waspreparedbyallthethreedoctors.

106.

The samples collected were handed over to police in sealed

condition for chemical analysis. Sample of tissue bits were sent for
histopathologicalexamination.

107.

On 11/12/2013 ACP crime branch sent the CA report and

histopathology report with memorandum of postmortem examination to


obtain final cause of death. PW25 andDr.Waghmare gave final cause of
deathascomplications duetoacidburns(unnatural)andissuedcertificate

49

Exh.130.AsperPW25astheacidhadreachedtheupperrespiratorytract
andesophagusitdevelopedsepticemiacausingcomplications.

108.

There is no dent in the examination of this witness though

extensively crossexamined. He admitted that sulphuric acid is a corrosive


poisonandthatitispossiblethatduetotheinhalationofcorrosivepoisonthe
lungsweredamagedbutdisagreewiththecontentionthat2.5sq.cm.piece
of affected area is required in case of poisoning to detect the same.
Cardiopulmonary arrest was the cause of death as a result of sepsis and
multipleorganfailureisconfirmed.

4)

Medicalexaminationofaccused:

109.

PW21 Dr. Gajanan Chauhan with Dr. Thube and Dr. Niturkar

examinedtheaccusedAnkuron20/01/2014.Theynoticedsevenoldhealed
scarsofinjuriesonrightandleftforearmonflexoraspectandoverrightside
chest.
Oldhealedinjuriesonrightforearmwere
(1)0.05cm.x.04cm.nontender,smooth,white,glisteningover
rightforearamflexoraspect.0.05cm.abovewristjoint.
(2)2.5x0.8cm.,nontender,smooth,white,glistening,
marginswithbrownpegmentationofneovascularizationwith
coalescement(merging)atplacesoverrightforaramflexor
aspect7cm.abovewristjoint.
(3)3.00cmx1.00cmnontender,smooth,glistening,white,

50

overrightforarmflexoraspect9.5cm.abovewristjoint.
(4)1.5cmx0.9cm.nontender,smooth,glistening,white,over
rightforarmflexoraspect11.00cm.abovewristjoint.
(5)1.00cm.X0.3cm.nontender,smooth,glistening,white,over
rightforarmflexoraspect9.00cm.abovewristjointand
laternaltoinjuryno.3.
(6)

2.00x0.8cm.nontender,smooth,glistening,white,over

leftforarmflexoraspect4.00cm.abovewristjointmarginsill
definedbecauseofartificialtatoomark.
(7)

1.00cm.X0.2cm.Horizontal,overrightchest8.00cm.

belowandlateraltorightnippleinintercostalspace,non
tender,smooth,glistening,white.
110.

Injuries no.1 to 7 appeared to be burn injuries, caused by

corrosive substance of age 6 months to 12 months on the date of


examination.Heopinedonthebasisofappearance,distribution,extentand
locationofscarsthepossibilityofspiltofcorrosivesubstanceasacauseof
theseinjuries.Theappearancewithouttricklingmarksismostlikelytobe
caused by secondary drops after throwing corrosive liquid. The team of
doctorspreparedareportExh.102writtenbyDr.TubeandsignedbyPW21
andtwootherdoctorsinteam.

111.

On14/02/2014asperthequeryofACPvideExh.103theteam

of doctors opined that concentrate sulphuric acid comes under corrosive


substance/liquidcategoryofpoison.

51

112.

The defence tried to show that the medical examination of

accusedwasdefective anddoubtfulasthetimeoftheexaminationofthe
accusedisnotmentionedinExh.102.Thewitnessansweredthatitwouldbe
intheafternoon.Itischallengedthatthecorrosiveliquidwasnotshownto
the doctors regarding which the opinion was sought. However, PW21
maintainedthatallthreeofthemdecidedthereportaspertheirexamination.

113.

Prosecution could establish that the old healed injuries scars

presentonthehandsandchestoftheaccusedwerecausedduetocorrosive
substancewasprobablysecondarydropsofcorrosivesubstance,liquid.

4)

FORENSICEVIDENCE
ChemicalAnalyzerreport:Exh.116.TheCAreportsofvisceradoes

notrevealanypoison.Exh.117isofthesamplessentforbloodgrouping.Exh.
118isnotrelevantbeinginrespectofsemen.Exh.119istheCAreportof
ScalphairofPreeti,whichwasreferredtogeneralanalyticalandinstrument
divisioninoriginalcondition. Exh.120isinrespectofsamehairinwhich
sulphate from sulphuric acidis detected.In Exh.121clothes of Preeti and
Sunita Dahiya seized in the hospital are detected with sulphate from
sulphuricacid.Art.Cthedabbawaswithbrownishliquidwhichisdetectedas
concentratedsulphuricacid.
Inthearticlesseizedfromthespotofcrime,clothesofPreetiand
Sunitaseizedfromhospital,scalphaircollectedafterthedeathofPreetiand

52

thecontentsofArt.Cconcentratedsulphuricacidisdetected.

5.
114.

Otherevidence:
PW10 Ravikumar Badshah, who was in railway services,

supplied information to police in respect of PNR numbers 2446375926,


2608544153 and 2817363947. PNR numbers are automatically generated
andsavedintheserverwhentheticketispurchased. Uponreceivingthe
letter from crime branch on 24/02/2014 making inquiry about the PNR
numbers he supplied information that PNR number, 2446375926 was in
respectoftheticketpurchasedinthenameofAmarsinghAndPreetiRathion
09/04/2013 for train number 12910 classchair car, from Hajrat
Nizamuddin(Delhi) to Bandra Terminus Mumbai for the journey on
01/05/2013. PNR no 2608544153 was in the name of Vinodkumar and
SunitaandPNRno.2817363947wasinthenameofRohitSinghforthesame
trainandthejourney.

115.

PW10producedtheinformationatExh.66/1to66/3alongwith

certificateundersection65BofIndianEvidenceActatExh.65.Heretrieved
theinformationfromtheserver.Hewasauthorizedtoholdthepasswordto
retrievetheinformationfromthecomputer. Heexplainedthatthereisno
possibility of human error in the data stored in the server nor it can be
manipulated.

53

116.

PW33 PIWadmare collected call details of phone number of

Pawankumar who was in custody. He desealed and resealed Art.C in the


presenceofpanchason02/07/2013toleadtheinvestigationonthatbasis
andpreparedthepanchanamaExh.34.HereceivedCAreports Exh.116to
120.On30/11/2013investigationwastransferredtoCrimeBranch,Mumbai.
WhenPawankumarwasincustodyhewasreleasedonbailontheaffidavitof
PW14AmarsinghRathi.HedeniedthatheforceedAmarsinghtofileaffidavit
forPawankumar.HehadseenC.C.T.V.footagebutthosewerenotclear.

117.

DefencedisputedtheconductofPW33onthegroundthathe

faceddepartmentalinquiryforillegalarrestofonepersoninNDPScase.But
itcouldnotleadtotheconclusionthatheneveractedinabonafidemanner
northathewasincapacitatedfortheinvestigation.

118.

PW2AnandAnilSandhyewasgoingbacktohishomeat11.30

a.m. On 02/07/2013 when one police called him to assist to prepare


panchanama to which he consented. They went to Dadar Railway crime
branch. PW33, police Officer Wadmare, and another panch were there.
Brieflythefactsofthecasewasnarratedtohimregardingacidattackona
girlatBandraRailwayStation.Hewastoldthatonearticleistobedesealed
andresealed.Onebrowncolouredsealedpacketwasbroughtanditwasde
sealed.Onewhitecolouredplasticcontainerwithatransparentlidwasthere

54

inside.Thewords'DIVYAPHARMACY'B56025werewrittenonitsbottom.It
wasresealedandpanchanamaExh.34wasprepared.Hewasinformedthat
thesaidarticlewasreceivedfromchemicalanalyzer.HeidentifiedArt.Cin
thecourtasthesamethedabba/container.

119.

The conduct of PW34 is disputed on the ground that he was

remanded to police custody from 12/03/2005 to 15/03/2005 in case of


illegaldetentionwhichheclarifiedthatnochargesheetwasfiledagainsthim.
Hewasalsoattackedontheissuethatallthecolumnsinarrestpanchanama
Exh.57arenotfilled.However,Exh.49arrestpanchanamaofaccusedwas
prepared simultaneously. Exh.57 is only a format of arrest panchanama.
ContentsofExh.49andExh.57cannotbereadseparately.

120.

Acrossexaminationwasdonechallengingtheentryinlockup

registerExh.175.Fromwhichitisapparentthataccusedwasremovedfrom
lockupon20/01/2014at10.05a.m.forhismedicalexamination.Entriesin
lockupregisterinthenameofAnkushNarayanlalPanwarisseeninExh.179.
Itisseenpurelyaclericalmistake.Nodisputedordoubtfulentryisseenin
Exh.179.

121.

PW37RehmanShaikhhadissuedasimcardtotheaccusedwith

number9717545730.Thecustomerapplicationformgotfilledbyhimwith
photocopyofelectionIDproofandthephotographofaccusedAnkurwas

55

collectedbyhimvideExh.204.

122.

Thus,itisfoundthatPreeti,AmarsinghRathi,Vinodkumar

Dahiya and Sunita Dahiya travelled by Garibrath express from Delhi to


Mumbai Bandra Terminus. The Art.C which was seized from spot on
02.05.2013wasdesealedforthepurposeofinvestigationandresealed,after
itwasreceivedfromforensicsciencelaboratory.ThedescriptionofArt.Cis
thesameasinspotpanchanama.CAreportsExh.116to120werealready
received.Thereisproperentryinlockupregisterwhenaccusedwastakenout
forhismedicalexaminationon20/01/2014.

DOCUMENTARYEVIDENCE:
123.

The documents adducedbytheprosecution as evidenceforms

the significant part of the prosecution's case being prepared and obtained
duringinvestigation.Thoseareequallyimportantwhiledecidingthecharges
framedalongwiththeoraltestimonyofthewitnesses.
(1)Exh.28seizureofclothesofPreetiandSunitaDahiyaon
02/05/2013:
TheclothesofPreetiwereoneredtornsalwarwithacidburns,
onechocolatecolouredkurta,onebluecolouredknickersandawhitebrassier
atArt.A(colly.).ThoseareidentifiedbyPW1,thepanch,andPW3thenurse.
Salwarandkurtaarealmosttatteredduetotheacidfumes.Theclothesof
SunitaDahiyaArt.B(colly.)salwar,kurtaandodhaniarealsotornduetothe

56

acidburn.PW31preparedExh.28.
Inspiteofthecrossexaminationmakingtheeffortstodisprove
thecontentsitisprovedbyPW1,PW3andPW31.

(2)Exh.34PanchanamaofdesealingandresealingofArt.C
seizedon02/05/2013:
PW2wasthepanchinwhosepresenceitwaspreparedbyPW33
PIWadmareon02/07/2013.Thepurposeofdesealingandresealingisthat
asthearticlewasseizedon02/05/2013i.e.,immediatelyaftertheincident
investigator wanted to lead further investigation. He mentioned the
descriptionofthewords'DIVYAPHARMACY'andnumberB56025embossed
onit.ItwasthearticlecontainingcorrosiveliquidhurledatPreeti.Itwassent
to FSL for CA. After receipt of the same from CA this panchnama was
prepared.PW5,PW6andPW29alsoidentifieditaswasseizedunderspot
panchanama.
(3)Exh.41and42Confessionalstatementoftheaccusedand
discoveryofsourceofsulphuricacid:
On 19/01/2014 the confessional statement of accused Ankur
PanwarwasrecordedinthepresenceofPW4byPW35APIDhamal.Itwas
preparedasperthesayoftheaccusedwhowasincustody.WhenPW4went
tothepolicestationaccusedwasinveil.Accusedvoluntarilydisclosedthathe
will show the place from where and from whom he had purchased acid.

57

Exh.41bearssignatureofaccusedandpanchasincludingPW4.Itleadthe
investigationastheaccusedshowedthegodownatPannapaposhiyaatDelhi.
Panchasandpoliceofficerswenttothegodownshownbyhimownedandrun
by PW15 and PW16. At Pannapaposhiya PW16 was not present. PW15
arrivedbutaccusedinformedthatheobtainedacidfromayoungmanand
not from PW15, who was an aged person. The panchanama of the
proceedingswasdrawnatPannapaposhiya.ItisalsosignedbyPW15,who
describedthepanchanamasproceedingstookplaceinhispresence.Itisthe
importantdocumentwhichhelpedingainingmomentumintheinvestigation.
Itwasonlywhentheninformationwassuppliedbytheaccusedthefactofthe
sourceofacidcouldgetunclothed.NeitherPW15norPW16wereknownto
policenorPW14Amarsinghhadanyknowledgeofhisinvolvement.Nobody
wasacquaintedwiththefactthatPW15andPW16areacidsellers.Itisan
importantlinkinthechainofcircumstances
The witnesses have clearly proved that the memorandum of
statementofaccusedwaspreparedatthesayoftheaccused.Heleadthe
investigatingteamtothesourceofacidbroughtbyhim.
(4)Exh.45Spotpanchanama:
On 02/05/2013 PW29 PSI Chauhan went to the spot at the
instructionsofPIDhopavkarPW31.PW6Sameershowedthespot.Fromthe
spotArt.C'dabba'wasseized.Alsothefluidwascollectedfromtheground
alongwith some burnt pieces of clothes. PW5, the panch, identified the

58

articlesseizedinhispresence.Art.N,theburntpiecesofclothes,whende
sealedinthecourtwerefoundturnedintopiecesalongwiththebrownpaper
inwhichthosewerewrapped.
DescriptionoflidputonArt.CisnotthereinExh.45.ButPW5
andPW21specificallydescribedtheplasticlid.Thelidisalsomentionedin
forwarding letter Exh.112 by which the articles were sent for CA. Some
browncolouredcorrosivechemicalwasinArt.C.Therefore,fromthenearby
stallonelidwastakenandfixedonit.Itisthefirstdocumentpreparedinthe
investigationat11.00a.m.to11.45p.m.TheroughmapofthespotExh.45A
wasdrawnduringspotpanchanamaclearlydepictingastowheretheincident
took place. PW6, PW7 and PW9 have described the spot as they were
present on the spot and are well acquainted with the topography of that
place.
Thereisnothingtodoubttheexecutionofspotpanchanamaand
thecontentstherein.
(5)Exhibit49andExhibit57Arrestpanchanamaofaccused
AnkurPanwar:
PW34, PI Khot arrested the accused in the presence of PW8
Firoz and Exh.49 arrest panchanama was prepared. At the time of arrest
physicalsearchoftheaccusedwasconducted.Hismobilephoneandarticles
foundwereseized.Onhisforearmabovethewristjoint6oldhealedscarsof
injureswerenoticed.Towardsrightsideofthechestonemoreoldscarwas

59

noticed.
Arrest form was filed as per the information provided by the
accused.TheinjuriesareclearlymentionedinExh.57.Thedocuments are
preparedatthesametimeandarethepartandparceloftheproceedingsof
arrestoftheaccused.
Thearrestoftheaccusedisestablished.
(6)Exhibit61Theinquestpanchanama:
Itisadmittedbythedefence.Itismentionedthatvictimdiedon
01/06/2013at4.00p.m.outofacidburninjuries.
(7) Exh.63, Exh.64, Exh.65, Exh.66/1 to 66/3, Exh.67 and
Exh.68documents regarding travel of victim and her relatives from
Hazrat Nizamuddin Railway Station, Delhi to Bandra Railway Station,
Mumbai:
Exh.68 is admitted by the defence which is a station wise
detentionoftrainnumber12910GaribrathExpressbywhichPreetitravelled
overnight.PW10Ravikumarissued theinformationofPNRatExh.66/1to
66/3 with the certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act on
receipt of Exh.63 from ACP Crime Branch on 24/02/2014. He was the
authorizedpersontoretrievethedatafromtheserverofhisdepartment.
(8) Exhibit 74a memo, given to carry injured to Bhaba
Hospital:
On 02/05/2013PW12was handedover this memo.Withthe

60

same memo he carried Preeti and injured Sunita to Gurunanak Hospital


wheretheywereexaminedandtreatedprimarily.Thenamesofinjuredare
notmentionedinExh.74.However,theacidthrownbyunknownpersonis
clearlymentioned.
(9)

Exhibit77andExhibit77AFIRandtheformatofFIR:

TheFIRno.36/2013wasregisteredonthestatementofPW14at
10.35a.m.on 02.05.2013againstoneunknownperson.Thedescriptionof
theaccusedisgivenasofthinbuilt,wearingyellowcolouredTshirt,shoes
andtyingscarfonhisface.ThecompleteincidentismentionedinFIRthat
whenPreeti,PW11,PW14andSunitaDahiyaalightedfromthetrainPW14
heardPreeti'sscreams.Healsofeltthatsomeliquidissplashedonhim.When
helookedbackhesawoneunknownpersonhadthrowninflammableliquid
onPreetiandwasrunningaway.Heandhisrelativesshoutedbuttheattacker
ranawaybytakingdisadvantageofthecrowd.Oneladyfromthecrowdand
oneotherpersonalsoreceivedinjuriesduetotheliquidspatteredonthem.
Preeti and Sunita were taken to Gurunanak Hospital and from there to
MasinaHospitalatBycullawhichhelearntfrompolice.Hehimselfhadalso
receivedinjuriesoutofacid.Hedidnotsuspectanybody.Thenamesofthe
injuredpersonsarementionedintheFIR.
InExh.77Aincoloumnno.4ithasbeenmentionedthattheacid
flungwithintentiontodisfigurethefaceofPreetitokillher.
CertifiedcopyofFIRfromthecourtofMagistratefiledbythe

61

prosecutiontoshowthatthecopyofFIRwassenttoMagistrateisadmissible
inevidence.ItbearsendorsementofMetropolitanMagistrate,36thCourt,that
itwasreceivedat11.00a.m.on03/05/2013.
FIR Exh.77A is the same which was submitted before the
Magistrate.NopossibilityofreplacingtheFIRisseen.
(10) Exhibit 80, 81, 82license for acid sale held by
RamkumarandMukeshBhargavandExh.163entryofacidsamplegiven
totheaccused:
PW15andPW16werehavingthebusinessofsellingacidonthe
licenseinthenameofwifeofPW15namelyVimlaBhargav,inthenameand
style'BhargavChemicalCompany'atNarela,Delhi.
Exh.163 is the entry in the name of Ankur Battery on
14/04/2013regarding2kg.Sulphuricacidsampletakenbyhim.Itwasthe
entry maintained by PW15 and PW16 which was collected by the
investigatingofficer.ItisalsomentionedthattheIDproofofthepersonwas
seenwhenhetooksample.PW16identifiedtheaccusedasthesameAnkur
receivingsulphuricacidsample.
Thus,prosecutionbroughtthefactthatthePW15andPW_16
wereinthebusinessofacidincludingsulphuricacidandtheentryof2Kg.
sulphuricacidgiventotheaccusedassamplewasmade.
(11)Exhibit88stationdiaryentrydated02/05/2013:
Itdisclosestheinformationofincidentdated02/05/2013at8.05

62

a.m.andtheFIRlodged.Itcorroboratesthe oraltestimonyofPW14and
PW17.
(12) Exhibit91memoformedicalexaminationoftheother
injuredpersons:
PW18 buckle no.3259 had carried injured persons to Bhaba
Hospital.ItismentionedinExh.91.ItwasreceivedbyPW26Dr.Manisha
Bharti. He gave original copy of Exh.91 to Bhaba Hospital. Exh.91 is the
carboncopywiththereceiptofmemobydoctorManisha.PW26examined
the injured persons Amarsingh, Sameer and Sudesha Kumari. brought by
PW18andissuedthecertificateatExh.134,135and136.
(13) Exh.96TestIdentificationparade:
Exh.95 was received by ACP, Bhosale, PW36, from PW19
informingthedateofthetestidentificationparade.
On31/01/2041arequisitionwasmadebyPW36tothecourtof
Magistrate seeking permission to hold test identification parade. As the
permissionwasgranted,on01/02/2014, Tahasildarwasrequestedtohold
testidentificationparadeviderequisitionatExh.185.OnthesamedayJail
Superintendent, Arthur Road Jail, was alsoinformed by Exh.186. Exh.187
was received from Tahasildar on 06/02/2014 appointing PW19, Naib
TahasildarN.K.ThakurtoholdtestidentificationparadeofAnkurPanwar.
On07/02/2014PW36informedJailSuperintendenttoarrangeforthetest
identificationparadeon12/02/2014aspertheinformationprovidedfrom
Tahasildar.SummonswereissuedtoNasimKhanatExh.189,SaleemShaikh

63

PW7atExh.190andSameerShaikhPW6atExh.191.
PW19conductedthetestidentificationparadeon12/02/2014
for seven witnesses. He selected two panchas and held test identification
parade.Thenamesofthedummypersonsmadetostandwiththeaccusedare
mentionedinExh.96.Allprecautionsweretakenbyhimaspertheguidelines
fortestidentificationparade.Theaccusedwasaskedtochangetheclothesif
he desires so. One by one all the witnesses were called in identification
parade room. PW6, PW7, PW9, PW11, PW16 identified the accused. A
separate chart for each of the witnesses regarding identification of the
accusedbythemwasprepared.Afterthetestidentificationparadewasover
Exh.96waspreparedinrespectofthecompleteproceedings.Itwassignedby
twopanchasandPW19.
Theevidenceregarding testidentification paradeheldandthe
identification of the accused by the witnesses could not be assailed by
defence.Nopossibilityoftheaccusedbeingshowntothewitnessespriorto
the test identification parade nor any deliberate act nor serious lacuna in
holdingtestidentificationparadeisbroughtinthecrossexamination.
(14) Exh.101, Exh.102, Exh.103 and Exh.104Medical
examinationoftheaccused:
AftertheaccusedAnkurwasarrestedhewas sentformedical
examinationforexaminationoftheoldhealedscarsofinjurieshehad.PW36
issued a letter Exh.101 to Forensic Science Department J.J. Hospital on
20/01/2014 to rule the possibility of causing injures by sulphuric acid.

64

AccordinglyateamofdoctorsincludingPW21,examinedtheaccusedand
opinedvideExh.102theinjuriesasmostlikelytobecausedbysecondary
dropsofcorrosiveliquid.ThequerywasplacedbyPW36videExh.103toget
clarifiedwhether concentratedsulphuric acidcomes under the categoryof
corrosivesubstance/liquidcategory.Theopinionwasgivenbythesameteam
ofdoctorsaffirmingtheconcentratedsulphuricacidascorrosivesubstance
underliquidcategoryofpoison.
Thedoctorestablishedthattheoldhealedinjuryscarsnoticedon
thepersonofaccusedaremostlikelytobecausedbysecondarydropsof
corrosive liquid and that concentrated sulphuric is corrosive liquid. No
possibilityofoilburninjuriesisevenexpressedbythedoctors.
(15) Exhibit 107, 108, 110, 138, 148 and 152papers from
MasinaHospitalinrespectoftreatmentofPreetifrom02/05/2013upto
18/05/2013:
On02/05/2013PreetiwasbroughttotheMasinaHospital.As
per writing in Exh.138 she was brought by relatives with the history of
accidental acid burns. But thereafter it was clarified that those were
homicidal chemical burns. Preeti was conscious and responding to verbal
commandsbutwasnotabletospeak.Thevoicewasnotclear.Therewas
bleedingthroughrylestubes.Theburnwascalculatedas20to25%.Exh.138
disclosestheburnsnoticedonface,oralcavity,eyes,nose,ear,neck,both
upper limbs,chest,abdomen and back.The injuries were deep burns and
opinedasacidburns.Shewascontinuouslyundertreatment.On18/05/2013

65

it was advised to shift her to Bombay Hospital to deal with Tracheo


esophagealfistula.
These are the papers prepared when Preeti was in Masina
Hospital.ThesearedaytodaynotessincewhenPreetiwashospitalized.
(16) Exh.203 and Exh.154Medical treatment in Bombay
Hospital:
On 18/05/2013 Preeti was shifted to Bombay Hospital from
Masina Hospital. Her condition was critical. Since her admission she was
found with Tracheoesophageal fistula. A team of doctors was working
including specialists and plastic surgeon under the guidance of PW28 Dr.
AshokGupta.Inspiteofalltheeffortsduetotheacidburns,lunginjuriesand
othercomplicationsPreetisuccumbedtotheinjurieson01/06/2013.PW28
hadpreparedacomprehensivereport,videExh.154,ofexaminationofPreeti
togiveittorailwaypolice,alongwiththephotographsofthefaceofPreeti.
Theportioninsideandoutsidethemouthwascompletelyburntduetothe
acid.Theaciddisfiguredherface.Ithadenteredintohergutcausingedema,
hemorrhage,congestionleading tocomplications.ThepicturesofPreetiin
reportExh.154illustratethehorrificeshefaced.
Exh.154givesthecompleteideaofconditionandtreatmentof
PreetiinBombayHospital.
(17)Exhibit124MemorandumofPostmortem:
Dead body of Preeti was sent for postmortem which was
conductedbyateamofdoctorsincludingPW25,Dr.Chikhalkar,whoopined

66

the cause of death as septicemia with pulmonary consolidation with


pulmonaryhemorrhageoutofsuperficialtodeepburns. Theynoticedthe
injuriesi.e.,burninjuriesoverfaceandneck,chestandabdomen,bothupper
limbs,bothlowerlimbsandback. Theyseparatelymentionedthesurgical
injuries. Anterior and posterior views, marking the portion of the body
injuredoutofburnandsurgicalwounds,areseparatelyshownbypicturaque
presentation. Samples of viscera and tissue bits of Preeti were collected.
Tissuebitsweresentforhistopathologicalexamination.AfterreceiptofCA
reportPW25gavefinalcauseofdeathatExh.130opiningitascomplication
due to acid burnunnatural. CA report at Exh.120 regarding scalp hair of
Preeti Rathi, collected after the death, was detected with sulphate from
sulphuricacid.
CAreportatExh.121ofbrownishliquidinArt.C,confirmedthe
contents as concentrated sulphuric acid. Sulphate from sulphuric acid is
detectedinclothepiecesfoundonspot,cottonsswabswiththefluidcollected
fromthespot,salwar,kurta,brassiersandknickersofPreetiaswellasSalwar,
Kurta and odhani of Sunita Dahiya. No acid residue was detected in soil
sample.
Noinfirmityisseeninpostmortemexaminationnorthereport
preparedthereafter.
(18) Exh.168Railway reservation chart of Garibrath
Express:
NameofPawankumarwaspointedoutinthesameonpageno.

67

339.Itisonlythefirstnamewithoutfathersnameandsurname.
(19) Exh.175, 176, 177, 178, 179Station diary entry of
carryingaccusedtoJ.J.Hospitalformedicalexamination:
On20/01/2014at8.45a.m.theentryisseenatExh.175taking
himformedicalexaminationandasreturnedat1.30p.m.PW34,PIKhot,
gavearequisitiontohandoverthecustodyoftheaccusedon20/01/2014
fromlockuptopolicepersonalsPN28493andB.C.970651videExhibit176.
ThelockupregisterentryinExh.179showsthattheaccusedcameoutat
10.05a.m.on20/01/2014andwasgiveninthecustodyofPN28493.
EntryatExh.179ischallengedonthegroundthatthenameis
notwrittenasAnkurbutitisasAnkush.However,inExh.179atthebottom
oneaccusedfromDCB,CIDisshownincustody.Therefore,itismerely a
defectivewriting.Thecrimenumberisproperlywrittenas120/2013withthe
nameoftheinvestigatingofficerasACPBhosale.
(20) Exh.192TransferofinvestigationfromBandraRailway
policestation,Crimenumber36/2013,toDCB,CID:
In criminalwritpetition no.2900of 2013filedbyPW14the
investigation was transferred to DCB, CID where the special investigation
teamwasformedincludingPW36PrafulBhosale,PIKhot,PSIDhamaland
PSIGhuge.
(21)Exh.204Simcardpurchasedbytheaccused:
Accused had purchased Airtel sim card from PW37 and had
giventheformatExh.204whichwaswithhisphotographandphotocopyof

68

identiycardissuedbyelectioncommission.
Submissionsofboththesides:
124.

SUBMISSIONSADVANCEDBYLD.SPP:
Ld.SpecialPublicProsecutorShriUjjwalNikamsubmittedthat

theprosecutionhasexaminedeyewitnessestoprovetheactoftheaccused.
Thereare4personsPW6,PW7,PW9andPW11,whohadseentheaccused
flinging acid on Preeti. They are natural witnesses. They all have given
reasonsastowhytheywereatrailwaystationatthetimeofincident.PW11
andPW14were withPreeti.Theyhave noenmityagainstthe accusedto
deposeagainsthim.PW6andPW14aretheinjuredwitnesses.Therefore,
theirtestimonyisbelievable.Thereiscorroboratorycontemporaneousfacts
anddocumentaryevidenceshowingthatArt.Cwasbroughtbytheaccused
Ankur.Itwaswith2kg.acidwhichhehadobtainedfromPW16.According
toPW21,itisastrongcorrosiveliquid.Thesameliquidwasfoundonthe
clothesofPreetiandSunita,onplatformno.3onthefloor,andinthescalp
hair ofPreeticollectedafter her death.The accountofeye witnessesthat
accusedthrewacidhasbeenproved.Healedscarsontheforearmandchestof
theaccusedarealsoopinedasburnscausedduetosecondarydropsofacid.
The panch witnesses on seizure of articles from spot, hospital and on
memorandumofstatementofaccusedatExh.41and42provedthechainof
circumstances from the preparation upto the execution of the crime. The
defencethoughhastakenpleaofalibiandthattheoldhealedscarscanbe

69

causedduetooilburn,but,hasnotbroughtanythingintheevidencetoprove
thesame.Theburdenoffactswithinhisknowledgehastobeprovedbythe
accused.Thesubmissionsadvancedarethattheaccusedcausedthedeathof
Preeti,whichwaspreplanned.

125.

The motive is disclosed as Preeti defied the accused on his

proposalofmarriageoutofhisunilaterallove,hecookedaplan,followed
Preetiandflungacidonherfaceinacrowdedplacefromwherehecould
flee. Conduct of the accused before and after incident is material which
proved to be an additional link in the chain of the circumstances. It is
vehementlyarguedthatafterfollowingPreetifromDelhitheaccusedcould
succeedinMumbaitoexecutehisplan.Theaccusedcouldnotgetarrestedtill
January,2014asPreetiwasnotabletospeakandshewascluelessastowhy
somebodywilltrytokillher.ItisonlywhenNituSolanki'sstatementwas
recordedthenameofAnkurappearedwhichlendsupporttothedoubtshown
by Preeti earlier. Pawankumar Gehalan was though arrested there was no
nexustoconnecthimtothecrime.ItwasonlytheaccusedAnkurwhowas
tryingtobeawayfromtheinvestigation.Afterthearrestwithoutdelay,test
identificationparadewasconducted.Itisthedisclosureoftheaccusedwhich
lead investigation to reach upto obtaining the acid by the accused from
PW16. Detection of sulphuric acid in articles is also the important link
connectingtheaccusedtothecrime.Hence,accordingtohim,allthecharges

70

framedagainsttheaccusedstandprovedbeyondreasonabledoubt.

126.

Prosecution cited the following decisions to consider the legal

positionondifferentaspects:
1.

Ondelayinrecordingstatement

GUNNANA PENTAYYA ALIAS PENTADU AND OTHERS Verses STATE OF


ANDHRAPRADESH[(2010)2SupremeCourtCases(Cri.)148],
''ItwasobservedthatthisCourtinseveraldecisionshasheldthat
unlesstheinvestigatingofficeriscategoricallyaskedastowhy
therewasdelayinexaminationofthewitness,thedefence
cannottakeadvantagetherefrom.Intheinstantcase,no
questionhasbeenaskedtotheinvestigatingofficer,PW53
regardingthereasonfordelay.Therewasevennosuggestion
thatPW2wasnotpresentinthehousewhentheincidenttook
place''.
2.

Onthepointofomissioninthedeposition.

JASWANTSINGHVersesSTATEOFHARYANA[(2000)4SupremeCourt
Cases484]
3.

Ontheclarificationsoughtbyprosecution.
i.

CHANDRASHEKHARSURESHCHANDRABHATTANDOTHERS

VersusSTATEOFMAHARASHTRA[(2000)10SupremeCourtCases582],
''LearnedcounselfortheappellantscontendedthatPW2cannot
bebelievedforsomanyreasons,mainamongwhichisthathe
madeimprovementsonhisversiontosuittheprosecutioncase.
Hestatedinstancesofsuchimprovements.Wehaveappliedour
mindandnoticedthatthoughthereweresomemarginal
variationsoncertainaspectsasbetweenhisstatementrecorded
undersection161oftheCodeofCriminalProcedureandthe
testimonygiveninCourt,suchvariationscannotbedubbedas
improvementsmadewithanysinistermotive.Theyare

71

elaborationselicitedbythePublicProsecutorduringthe
examinationinchief.ItistheprerogativeofthePublic
Prosecutortoelicitsuchpointsfromawitnessashedeems
necessaryforthecase.NoPublicProsecutorcanbenailedtothe
statementrecordedunderSection161oftheCode.We
scrutinizedthesocalledimprovementsfromtheangleandwe
aresatisfiedthatPW2hadbasicallyremainedatthesame
positionwhichhehasstatedintheFIR''.
ii.

ESHERSINGVersusSTATEOFA.P.[(2004)11Supreme

CourtCases585],
''Amereelaborationcannotbetermedasdiscrepancy.Whenthe
basicfeaturesarestated,unlesstheelaborationisofsuchnature
thatitcreatesadifferentcontourorcolouroftheevidence,the
samecannotbesaidtohavetotallychangedthecomplexionof
thecase.
4.

onminorinconsistenciesintheevidenceofwitnesses

JAIKARANANDOTHERSVersusSTATEOFU.P.[2005SupremeCourt
Cases(Cri.)812],
''Afterconsideringhisevidenceintoto,theHighCourtfoundthe
evidencetoimplicitlytruthfulandreliable.Thoughhispresence
wasattemptedtobeshowndoubtful,wedonotfindanyreason
toaccepttheplea.Hispresenceattheplaceofincidentwas
explainedandhisevidencecannotbethrownoutasunreliable
merelybecauseinsomecaseshewasacoaccusedwiththe
deceasedSuryaPrakashSingh''.
''Unlessthemedicalevidenceinitsturngoessofarthatit
completelyrulesoutallpossibilitieswhatsoeverofinjuriestaking
placeinthemannerallegedbyeyewitnesses,thetestimonyofthe
eyewitnessescannotbethrownoutonthegroundofalleged
inconsistencybetweenitandthemedicalevidence''.
5.

Factsbroughtincrossexamination:

TARUNBORAALIASALOKHAZARIKAVersusSTATEOFASSAM[(2002)7
Supreme Court Cases (Cri.) 39 or (2002) Supreme Court Cases (Cri.)
1568],

72

''Incrossexaminationthewitnessstatedasunder:
AccusedTarunBoradidnotblindmyeyesnorheassaultedme.
''Thispartofcrossexaminationissuggestiveofthepresenceof
accusedTarunBorainthewholeepisode.Thiswillclearly
suggestthepresenceoftheaccusedTarunBoraasadmitted.The
onlydenialisthattheaccuseddidnotparticipateinblindfolding
theeyesofthewitnessnorassaultedhim''.
''WehavealreadynoticedthatinthecrossexaminationofPW1,
asuggestionwasputtohimthattheappellantTarunBorahad
neitherparticipatedinblindfoldinghimnorassaultedhim.This
isclearlyindicativeofthepresenceoftheappellantand
participationinthekidnappingepisode''.

6.

Reaction of witness,pastevent conduct of witness can not be

predicted.
RAMMI ALIAS RAMESHWAR Versus STATE OF M.P. [(2000) Supreme
CourtCases(Cri.)26],
''PW9RamDulare(apassengerinthebus)inhisevidencesaid
thathesawtheappellantsattackingthedeceasedwithchopper
andknives. Thetrialcourtpointedoutthathedidnotinform
themembersofthefamilyofthedeceasednordidhebringthis
mattertothenoticeofthepolice.TheSessionsJudgeregarded
theaboveasaconductincompatiblewiththenormalbehaviour
ofapersonwitnessingsuchacrime.
Sucharemarkontheconductofapersonwhowitnessedthe
murderousattackisleastjustifiedintherealmofappreciationof
evidence.Thiscourthassaidtimeandagainthattheposteven
conductofawitnessvariesfrompersontoperson.Itcannotbea
castironreactiontobefollowedasamodelbyeveryone
witnessingsuchevent.Differentpersonswouldreactdifferently
onseeinganyviolenceandtheirbehaviourandconductwould,
therefore,bedifferent.Wehavenotnoticedanythingwhichcan
beregardedasaabnormalconductofPW9RamDulare''.
7.

Onthepointthatdifferentpersonsreactdifferentlytotheincident.

STATE OF U.P Versus DEVENDRA SINGH [2005 Supreme Court Cases


(Cri.)582],

73

''Everypersonwhowitnessesaseriouscrimereactsinhisown
way.Somearestunned,becomespeechlessandstandrootedto
thespot.Somebecomehystericandstartwailing.Somestart
shoutingforhelp.Othersrunawaytokeepthemselvesasfar
removedfromthespotaspossible.Yetothersrushtotherescue
ofthevictim,evengoingtotheextentofcounterattackingthe
assailants.Somemayremaintightlipped,overawedeitheron
accountoftheantecedentsoftheassailantsorthreatsgivenby
him.Eachonereactsinhisspecialwayeveninsimilar
circumstances,leavealone,thevaryingnaturedependingupona
varietyofcircumstances.Thereisnosetruleofnaturalreaction.
Todiscardtheevidenceofawitnessonthegroundthathedid
notreactinanyparticularmanneristoappreciateevidenceina
whollyunrealisticandunimaginativeway''.
8.

Onhearsayevidence

SATISHKUMARVersusTHESTATE[1996CRI.L.J.265]
''(A)EvidenceAct(Iof1872),S.145Crossexamination
StatementsmadetoPolicebywitnessNotadmissiblein
evidenceSuchstatementcanbeusedonlyforpurposeof
contradictingwitnessinviewofprovisionsofS.162,Cr.P.C.''

9.

OnthepointthatstatementofI.O.basedonthestatementofother

witness,notadmissible.
RAM KISHAN AND OTHERS Versus STATE OF U.P. [(2006) 1 Supreme
CourtCases(Cri.)603]
''Thefatherinlawofthedeceasedwasnotexaminedasa
witness.Therefore,thestatementgivenbytheinvestigating
officermusthavebeenbasedonthestatementofthefatherin
lawofthedeceasedrecordedundersection161oftheCodeof
CriminalProcedure.Thestatementgivenbytheinvestigating
officerregardingthisfactisnotdirectlyadmissibleinlaw''.

10.

OncrypticinformationregistrationofFIRisnotexpected.

74

RAMSINHBAVAJIJADEJAV/S.STATEOFGUJARAT[1994SupremeCourt
Cases(Cri)609],''
''Ifthetelephonicmessageiscrypticinnatureandtheofficerin
charge,proceedstotheplaceofoccurrenceonbasisofthat
informationtofindoutthedetailsofthenatureoftheoffence
itself,thenitcannotbesaidthattheinformation,whichhadbeen
receivedbyhimontelephone,shallbedeemedtobefirst
informationreport.Theobjectandpurposeofgivingsuch
telephonicmessageisnottolodgethefirstinformationreport,
buttorequesttheofficerinchargeofthepolicestationtoreach
theplaceofoccurrence.Ontheotherhand,theinformation
givenontelephoneisnotcrypticandonbasisofthat
information,theofficerincharge,isprimafaciesatisfiedabout
thecommissionofacognizableoffenceandheproceedsfromthe
policestationafterrecordingsuchinformation,toinvestigate
suchoffencethenanystatementmadebyanypersoninrespect
ofthesaidoffenceincludingabouttheparticipants,shallbe
deemedtobeastatementmadebyapersontothepoliceofficer
inthecourseofinvestigation,coveredbySection162ofCode.
Thatstatementcannotbetreatedasfirstinformationreport.By
anytelephonicinformationaboutcommissionofacognizable
offenceirrespectiveofthenatureanddetailsofsuchinformation
cannotbetreatedasfirstinformationreport''.

127.

Prosecution cited the judgments appreciating statement under

section313ofCr.P.C.andtheratio'slaiddownthereto:
i
ii
iii
iv

128.

SWAPANPATRAANDOTHERSVersusSTATEOF
W.B.[(1999)9SupremeCourtCases242],
JOSEPHS/O.KOOVELIPOULOV/S.STATEOF
KERALA[AIR(2000)Supremecourt1608],
STATEOFPUNJABVersusKARNAILSINGH
[(2003)11SupremeCourtCases271]
ANTHONYD'SOUZAANDOTHERSVersusSTATE
OFKARNATAKA[(2003)1SupremeCourtCases
259],

Onpleaofalibipointingoutthatitistheburdenofaccusedto

provehisabsenceatthesceneofcrimeatthetimeofitscommission:

75

i
ii.

STATEOFHARYANAVersusSHERSINGHANDOTHERS
[1981SupremeCourtCases(Cri)421],
BACHITTARSINGHANDANOTHERVersusSTATE
OFPUNJAB[2003SupremeCourtCases(Cri)233].

SUBMISSIONSADVANCEDBYDEFENCEADVOCATE:
129.

As against the arguments of prosecution the defence advocate

challenged the case of prosecution firstly on the ground that it was not
sulphuricacidwhichcausedthedeathofPreetiandsecondlythattheaccused
ismadescapegoatbyfabricatingthedocumentsandtutoringthewitnesses.It
isafter8monthsoftheincidenttheaccusedwasarrested.OnePawankumar
was arrested but father of the victim wanted to save him, though having
knowledgethathewastheperpetrator,hefiledaffidavitExh.213Ainthebail
applicationfiledbyPawankumartherefore,investigatingofficercaughtAnkur
Panwaranddischargedtherealaccused.Defencecounselstrenuouslyargued
that the entire evidence of prosecution's case is fabricated by the police
machinery. Art.C is available anywhere being a common article. The
eyewitnessesaregotupwitnesseswhodeposedunderthepressureofpolice.
Thewordswereputinthemouthofthewitnessestherefore,therearevarious
improvementsmadeinthedepositionmadebythewitnessesinthecourt.
The cause for death of Preeti is seriously disputed and challenged on the
groundthatitwasduetomedicalnegligenceandnotbecauseoftheacid
burns.TheinjuredwitnessesPW6&PW14wereexaminedbyDr.Sandip
Kale, who has not been examined as prosecution witness. Therefore, the
prosecutionfailedtoprovethatsomepersonswereinjuredintheincident.

76

PreetiwasfirstlyadmittedinBhabaHospitalandthereaftertakentoMasina
Hospital.ShewasnevertakentoGurunanakHospitalbutjusttoshowthat
shewastakentosomehospital,thedocumentswereprepared.

130.

By citing 'Medical Jurisprudence Forensic Medicine and

Toxicology'authoredbyDr.C.K.Parikh,theopinionofPW21ischallenged
onthegroundthatthescarswereappearingwithouttricklingmarks,which
was a clever statement. The weapon used is acid. CAreports disclose the
presenceofsulphuricacidwhilememorandumofpostmortemdisclosesthe
possibility of nitric acid. The forensic expert is not called as a witness to
identifytheweapon,thesulphuricacid.DefencecitedthejudgementinState
of Maharashtra V/s. Jagdish B. Shah [1992 CRILJ 2394], where the
Hon'bleSupremeCourtobservedthat
''the case rests entirely and exclusively on the chemical
analyser'sreportbecauseunlessitisestablishedthatthepowder
which is alleged to have been seized from the accused come
within the definition of, 'a dangerous drug', it would not be
possibletosustaintheconviction''.
131.

Shealsoadvancedargumentsthatinbatteriesdiluteacidisused

whiletheacidfoundinArt.Cwasconcentratedacid.Accordingtoherthe
basictooli.e.,Art.Cisfabricatedone.Therewasnoneedofdesealingand
resealingArt.C.However,justtoreplacethearticleitwasdone.Thechainof
custodyof'dabba'Art.Cisnotexplained.Pawankumarwastherealaccused
whowasarrestedbuttosavehimthefalseevidenceisbroughtinthecourt.

77

The material evidence of C.C.T.V. Footage and sketch drawn by the


investigatingofficerasperthedescriptionoftheeyewitnessesatearlystage
are concealed. Therefore, adverse inference has to be drawn against the
prosecution.InthisregardthedefencerelieduponthecaseofTomasoBruno
andanother V/s. State of U.P[2015 CRILJ 1690], whereinthe Hon'ble
SupremeCourtobservedthat
there shall be no gap in chain of circumstances, C.C.T.V.
Footage being a piece of crucial evidence, it is for the
prosecution to have produced the best evidence which is
missing. Omission to produce C.C.T.V. Footage, in our view,
which is the best evidence, raises serious doubts about the
prosecution'scase.

132.

Further,itwaspointedoutthatthestationdiaryentriesarenot

maintainedtocorroboratetheinvestigationbycitingthejudgmentincase
LalitakumariV/s.GovernmentofUttarPradesh[(2014)2SCC1],inpara
no.65
ItisrelevantpointthatFIRbookismaintainedwithitsnumber
givenonannualbasis.ThismeansthateachFIRhasaunique
annualnumbergiventoit.Thisisonsimilarlinesasthecase
numbersgivenincourts.Duetothisreasonitispossibletokeep
a strict control and track over the registration of FIR's by a
supervisory police officers and by the courts, whenever
necessary.CopyofeachFIRissenttosuperiorofficersandto
thejudicialmagistrateconcerned.
It is submitted that though the information was received on
phone by PI Dhopavkar, inspite of disclosure of information of cognizable
offence,theFIRwasnotregisterednoritwassenttothejudicialMagistrate.
It is alleged that the FIR previously lodged by PW14 was replaced and

78

fabricated FIR is brought in the court and that Exh.163 is a fabricated


document.

133.

Itisfurtherchallengedthatthetestidentificationparadewasnot

held as per the guidelines of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. Mere
identificationofthewitnessesisnotenoughtoinferthatthewitnesseshave
identifiedtheaccused.

134.

The decision in case of Salman Saleem Khan V/s. State of

Maharashtra,[2016ALLMR(Cri.)1]inparano.86and97theobservations
arepointedouttoshowthatseizureofregisterhavingentryatExh.163isnot
broughtbeforethecourtbyproperprocedurerequiredbylaw.

135.

Thedefencecounseladdedthattheeyewitnesseshavenotgiven

thecorroboratoryaccountofincidentandtherefore,thereisnoevidenceto
provethechargeframedagainsttheaccusedbeyondreasonabledoubt.

136.

ThedefencehasfurtherreliedthejudgementincaseofVenkata

SubbaReddyandothersV/s.Emperor[AIR1931Madras689],toshow
that,merestrongsuspicionisnotenough.Benefitofdoubtmustbegivento
theaccused.

79

137.

By challenging the testimony of PW13 Nitu Solanki on the

groundthatitismerelyahearsayevidence,notadmissibleintheevidence,it
ispointedoutthatinBabubhaiBhimabhaiBokhiriaV/s.StateofGujarath,
2014CRILJ2290SupremeCourtitisobservedthat
''Exceptapprehensionexpressedbythedeceased,thestatement
madebyhimdoesnotrelatetothecauseofdeathortoany
circumstance of the transaction which resulted in his death.
Onceweholdso,thenotedoesnotsatisfytherequirementof
section32oftheAct''.

138.

DefencecounselhasalsoreliedupontheMateriaMedicafrom

thebook'AnnalsonThoracicMedicine'toshowthatduetohighintracuff
pressureTracheoesophagealFistulawasacquired.Itismerelyanopinionof
theauthornotprovedwiththeevidenceofmedicalexpertbeforethecourt.

139.

Shealsopointedoutthatiftheacidissulphuricacidandspilt

overthebodytheskiniscorrodedandblackenedbutifitisnitricacidit
becomes yellow. The skin colour is shown as yellowish in postmortem
examination.

140.

Thedefencecounselsummedupwiththesubmissionsthatthere

is no evidence against the accused. It is an attempt to save the original


accusedPawankumarbyfabricatingallthedocuments.Theevidenceisnot
sufficienttoprovetheguiltoftheaccused.Hencesheprayedforacquittalof
theaccusedfromallthecharges.

80

MAJORPOINTSUNDERCONSIDERATIONONFACTSANDLAW:
1.
141.

FirstInformationReport:
FIRwaslodgedbyPW14afterhereturnedfromBhabaHospital.

PW17telephonicallyinformedPIDhopavkar,PW31abouttheincidentwho
askedhimtosecurethespotandtodrawspotpanchanama.Itisacryptic
informationgiventoPW31.Firstlytheinjuredweretakentohospitaland
then FIR was lodged. Therefore, no delay is seen in lodging FIR. All the
activities of carrying victim to hospital and enquiry were simultaneously
goingon.

142.

Incaseof Ramsingh BavajiJadeja citedsupraitisverywell

explainedthattheobjectandpurposeofgivingtelephonicmessageisnotto
lodgeFIRbuttorequesttheofficerinchargeofthepolicestationtoreachthe
placeofoccurrence.Therefore,thedelayoftwohoursinregistrationofFIRis
explainedbytheprosecution.Itisnotthecasethatpolicemachinerywas
thinkingovertheincidenttoinvolvethisaccusedinthecrime.TheFIRwas
lodgedagainsttheunknownpersons.Theaccusedcameintheclutchesof
investigatorsafter8monthsoftheincident.Therefore,therearenoremote
chancesthattheFIRwasfabricated.

143.

The contents in FIR discloses the complete incident and the

personinjured.Eyewitnessescorroboratedthesame.TheFIRwasforwarded
to the Magistrate on the very next day. No illegality, irregularity or

81

fabricationsofthedocumentisseen.
2.
144.

Stationdiaryentry:
Exh.203 shows that FIR was sent to judicial magistrate on

03/05/2013. It is with the same crime no. i.e., 36/2013. A telephonic


information was received by PI Dhopavkar who immediately directed to
securethespotandtodrawspotpanchanama.AfterAmarsinghRathicameto
thepolicestation,theFIRwaslodged.Themereinformationreceivedthat
therewasanacidattackisnotenoughtoregisterFIR.InacitylikeMumbai
thereisnoscarcityofhoaxincidentsthereforetheverificationisessential.
TheFIRwaslodgedat10.30a.m.However,theinjuredweresenttohospital.
AfterSamirShaikhcamebackfromthehospitalandthespotwasshownby
him.Nodefectorinfirmityisseeninthesame.Exh.74andExh.91showthat
theinjuredwerecarriedtothehospitalimmediatelyaftertheincident.

As per the case of Lalitakumari V/s. Government of Uttar

145.

Pradesh cited supra the information was received on phone by PI


Dhopavkar, and he paid attention towards the spot and the injured. After
AmarsinghRathisreturnedfromhospitalhelodgedreport.TheFIRwassent
toMagistrateonthenextday.Therefore,itisagenuinedocument.

3.
146.

Motiveandintentoftheaccused:
IncaseofR.ShivajiV.SStateofKeralaAIR2013SC651,itis

82

describedthat
Motiveisprimarilyknowntotheaccusedhimselfandit
therefore,itmaynotbepossiblefortheprosecutiontoexplain
whatactuallypromptedorexcitedtheaccusedtocommita
particularcrime.Inacaseofcircumstantialevidence,motive
maybeconsideredasacircumstance,whichisarelevantfactor
forthepurposeofassessingevidence,intheeventthatthereis
nounambiguousevidencetoprovetheguiltoftheaccused.
Motivelosesallitssignificanceinacaseofdirectevidence
providedbyeyewitnesses,wherethesameisavailable,forthe
reasonthatinsuchacase,theabsenceorinadequacyofmotive,
cannotstandinthewayofconviction.However,theabsenceof
motiveinacasedependingentirelyoncircumstantialevidence,is
afactorthatweighsinfavouroftheaccusedasitoftenforms
thefulcrumoftheprosecutionstory.
147.

It is generally an impossible task for the prosecution to prove

whatpreciselywouldhaveimpelledthemurderstokillaparticularperson.
Allthattheprosecutioninmanycasescouldpointtoisthepossiblemental
elementwhichcouldhavebeenthecauseforthemurder.

148.

Nodoubtitisasoundprincipletorememberthateverycriminal

actwasdonewithamotivebutitsnotthatnocriminaloffencewouldhave
beencommittediftheprosecutionhasfailedtoprovetheexactmotiveofthe
accused to commit it. When the prosecution succeeded in showing the
possibilityofsomeangerfortheaccusedtowardsthevictim,theinabilityto
furtherputonrecordthemannerinwhichsuchangerwouldhavecomeupin
themindoftheoffendertosuchadegreeastoimpelhimtocommitthe
offence cannot be construed as a fatal weakness of the prosecution. It is
almost impossible for the prosecution to unknot the full dimension of the

83

mentalstateofanaccusedtowardsthepersonagainstwhomhecommitted
crime.

149.

Themotiveisinferredfromtheconductoftheaccusedandthe

evidence of PW30. However, the account of eyewitnesses is very clear.


Therefore,eventhough,thereisstrongmotivetheinferencecanbedrawnon
thebasisofavailableevidencethataccusedwantedPreetitomarryhimandit
wasonlyhisdesire.

150.

AppreciatingtheobservationsinBabubhaiBhimabhaiBokhiria

V/s.StateofGujarath,citedsupraitisseenthat thefactsofthecaseare
differentasonthebasis ofthesaidnote thepetitionerhadsuspectedthe
accusedandprayedtosummontofacethetrial.Thepresentcircumstances
aredifferent.Inthecaseinhandaftercollectingalltheevidencewhichwent
againsttheaccusedtheinferencewasdrawninrespectofhismotive.The
statement of PW13 cracked the mystery and the accused was suspected.
Therefore,theobservationsarenotapplicabletothepresentcase.

151.

Whentheconsistentevidenceofalleyewitnessesisavailablefor

theprosecutionthereisatallnoneedtolookforcorroborationnortoinfer
themotive.Inadditiontotheeyewitnessesthereisampleevidenceonrecord
tobringthemotiveoftheaccused.Thus,whatevertheevidenceisavailableit

84

issufficienttoinferthataccusedbeingdefiedbyPreetionhisproposalhe
plannedthecrimeandexecutedit.

4.
152.

Omissions,contradictionsandimprovement:
Omission of the words 'pakdo pakdo' is pointed out in the

statementofPW14recordedundersection161ofCr.P.C.Thecontradictionis
shownintheevidenceofPW9thatPreetiwasstandingwhenshewastapped
fromherbacksidewhileaspertheprosecutionscaseshewaswalking.Inthe
statementofPW16theword'sale'isshownwhilehedeposedthathedidnot
stateso.

153.

Incaseof JASWANTSINGHVersesSTATEOFHARYANA cited

supraitisobservedthat,
''Section161(2)oftheCoderequiresthepersonmakingthe
statementstoanswertrulyallquestionsrelatingtosuchcaseput
tohimbysuchofficer....Itwould,therefore,dependonthe
questionsputbythepoliceofficer.Itistruethatacertain
statementmaynowbeusedunderSection162tocontradictsuch
witnessinthemannerprovidedbySection145oftheIndian
EvidenceAct,1872.Previously,thelawwasasenunciatedin
TahsildarSinghV.StateofUP.as:
(ii)Omissions,unlessbynecessaryimplicationbedeemedtobe
partofthestatement,cannotbeusedtocontradictthestatement
madeinthewitnessbox.
''NowtheexplanationtoSection162providesthatanomissionto
stateafactinthestatementmayamounttoacontradiction.
However,theexplanationmakesitclearthattheomissionmust
beasignificantoneandotherwiserelevanthavingregardto
thecontextinwhichsuchomissionoccursandwhetherany
omissionamountstoacontradictionintheparticularcontext
shallbeaquestionoffact.

85

Thus,theomissionandcontradictionaspointedoutarenot
significantandisnotfataltotheprosecutionnoraffectedthe
testimonyofthesewitnesses.

5.
154.

Factsdiscoveredu/s.27ofIndianEvidenceAct.
PW35VijayDhamalwenttoDelhialongwithPW30PSIGhuge

on04/01/2014forinvestigationinwhichNituSolankidisclosedthenameof
thepresentaccused.Therefore,theymadeinquirywiththeaccused. While
seeking information of his whereabouts on 01/05/2013 he noticed some
injuries over the hands of accused Ankur. Accused was giving evasive
answers.Heavoidedtogivehismobilenumbertherefore,itwasobtained
fromhisparents.Ontheinformationcollectedthephonenumberwasfound
inthenameofthepresentaccused.Therefore,on16/01/2014theybrought
theaccusedtoMumbaiwherehewasarrested.

155.

Forapplicationofsection27ofEvidenceAct,admissibleportion

of confessional statement has to be found as to a fact which was the


immediatecauseofthediscovery,onlythatwouldbepartoflegalevidence
andnottherest.Inastatementifsomethingnewisdiscoveredorrecovered
from the accused which was not in the knowledge of the Police before
disclosure statement of the accused is recorded, it is admissible in the
evidence.Section27ofEvidenceActrefereswhenany''fact''isdeposed.

156.

The expression ''fact discovered'' in Section 27 is not

86

restrictedtoaphysicalormaterialfactwhichcanbeperceivedbythesenses.
Itdoesincludeamentalfact.Theinformationpermittedtobeadmittedin
evidence is confined to that portion of the information which '' distinctly
relatestothefacttherebydiscovered.Buttheinformationtogetadmissibility
neednotbesotruncatedastomakeitinsensibleorincomprehensible.The
extentofinformationadmittedshouldbeconsistentwithunderstandability.

157.

IncaseofANTERSINGHVersusSTATEOFRAJASTHAN[2005

SupremeCourtCases(Cri)597] ascitedbyprosecution, discoveryunder


section27ofIndianEvidenceActisappreciatedinitsobjectas,
''atonetimeitwasheldthattheexpressionfactdiscoveredin
thesectionisrestrictedtoaphysicalormaterialfactwhichcan
beperceivedbythesenses,andthatitdoesnotincludeamental
fact,nowitisfairlysettledthattheexpressionfactdiscovered
includesnotonlythephysicalobjectproduced,butalsotheplace
fromwhichitisproducedandtheknowledgeoftheaccused''.

158.

Exh.163isaregisterentryinthenameofAnkurbatteries.After

disclosureofthefactofobtainingacidtheinvestigationproceededinthat
directionreachinguptotheregisterhavingentry.itwasbeforeimpositionof
RegulationonSaleofAcidinIndiainJuly,2013.

159.

Exh.163isproducedbyPW16whowasinitscustody.Nodoubt

canberaisedregardingitscustodywithhim.Admittedlyitwasnotseizedbut
the oral evidence thatthe entrywas maintainedand was handed over to

87

policebyPW16cannotbekeptaside.Furthermore,heidentifiedtheaccused
as the person to whom he had given 2 Kg. acid. Thus, Exh.163 is only
corroboratory in nature. Therefore, the facts and circumstances being
different, the observations in case of Salman Salim Khan V/s. State of
Maharashtracitedsupraarenotapplicable.

6.
160.

TestIdentificationParade.
Theideaofthetestofidentificationparadeistotesttheveracity

ofthewitnessinthequestionofhiscapacitytoidentify,fromamongseveral
personsmadetostandinaqueue,anunknownpersonwhomthewitnesshad
seenatthetimeofoccurrence.Themainquestionstakenintoconsideration
inthiscontextare
i.Whethertherewasopportunitytoseetheaccused
ii.Whethertheycouldrememberbyfacetheaccusedperson;&
iii.Whethertheycouldidentifythembysuchmemoryinthecourt.
161.

Where the identity of the accused is not known to the eye

witnesses, it is essential for the investigating officer to get such suspect


identifiedfromeyewitnessinatestidentificationparade,whichhasmainly
twoworks.
i.

Ensuresthatinvestigationisproceedingonarighttrack.

ii.

Ensuresthattheeyewitnessessmemoryregardingtheidentityof
theaccused.

88

162.

Ascitedbytheprosecution STATEOFMAHARASHTRAVersus

SURESH[2000SupremeCourtCases(Cri.)263]itisobservedthat,
''Ifpotholesweretobeferretedoutfromtheproceedingsofthe
Magistratesholdingsuchparadespossiblynotestidentification
paradecanescapefromoneortwolapses.Ifascrutinyismade
fromthatanglealoneandtheresultoftheparadeistreatedas
vitiatedeverytestidentificationparadewouldbecomeunusable.
Weremindourselvesthatidentificationparadesarenotprimarily
meantforthecourt.Theyaremeantforinvestigationpurposes.
Theobjectofconductingatestidentificationparadeistwofold.
Firstistoenablethewitnessestosatisfythemselvesthatthe
prisonerwhomtheysuspectisreallytheonewhowasseenby
theminconnectionwiththecommissionofthecrime.Secondis
tosatisfytheinvestigatingauthoritiesthatthesuspectisthereal
personwhomthewitnesseshadseeninconnectionwiththesaid
occurrence.Sotheofficerconductingthetestidentification
paradeshouldensurethatthesaidobjectoftheparadeis
achieved.Ithepermitsdilutionofthemodalitytobefollowedin
aparade,heshouldseetoitthatsuchrelaxationwouldnot
impairthepurposeforwhichtheparadeisheld''.

163.

IncaseofRAVINDERKUMARANDANOTHERVersusSTATEOF

PUNJAB[2001SupremeCourtCases(Cri)1384]ascitedbyLd.SPP.The
perceptionofparticularfactisappreciatedthat,
''Thecontentionisthatitisnotpossibleforanyperson,muchless
arickshawpullerlikePW5,torememberwhoexactly
employedhimtocarryaparticularloadonaparticularday,after
thelapseofseveraldaysthereafter.Thiscontentionisraised
overlookingthepsychologicalphenomenonthathumanmemory
isveryoftenaconditionedcharacteristic.Anythingwhichhasany
specialorpeculiarlineamentcancreateanimpactonthehuman
mindlastingforlong.Whileitistruethatroutineeventsina
man'sdaytodaylikemaynotremaininhismindforbeing
rememberedlater,anyoddorbizarrehappeningsinvolvinghim
orinfrontofhimhavethetendencytostickinhismindindelibly.
Ifthereisanycauseforhimtorecollectsucheventsagainthey
getrefreshedagain.Thatiswhyheisabletonarratesuchevents
withalldetailswhenaskedtodoso.Thisappliestoallwitnesses

89

incriminalcasesinvolvingseriousoffences.Normallynoporter
orrickshawpullercouldspeakfrommemoryastowhomor
whoseloadhecarriedmanydaysago.Butifthecarryingofa
loadonaparticulardaywassoonfollowedbytheflashof
sensationalnewsinthelocalitythattheloadcontainedthe
corpseofamurderedperson,theinstinctiverelationofthe
carrieristobecomeinquisitivetoknowwhetheritwasinrespect
oftheloadwhichhehimselfcarried.Ifthatinquisitivenesshad
turnedpositiveitisextremelyprobablethatallthevividdetails
relatingtothateventwouldstickinhismemory.Forhimsuch
eventwouldnothavebeenausualoccurrencebut
extraordinarilyoddandqueer.Hence,itisnotlikelytofadeout
thecanvasofhismind.Itwillbeunrealistictojettisonthe
testimonyofsuchawitnessonthemeregroundthathecouldnot
haverememberedafterthelapseofalongperiodtheidentityof
thepersonwhoengagedhimandalsooftheloadwhichhe
carried.We,therefore,repelsuchcontention''.
164.

Hence,whenthewitnesseshadnoopportunitytoseetheaccused

priortotheholdingoftheidentificationparadeaswellasalsonounfairaid
andassistancewas givenbythe investigating authorityastofacilitate the
identificationoftheaccused,thentheirevidencecanbeaccepted.

165.

TheidentifyingwitnessesarePW6,PW7,PW9andPW11who

sawtheaccusedatthetimeoftheincident.PW16sawhimwhenaccused
procuredacid.Theevidenceofeyewitnessesidentifyingtheaccusedremained
unshattered.

7.
166.

C.C.T.V.Footage:
CDofC.C.T.V.footagedataisfiledonrecordbutthesameisnot

usedbytheprosecution.Defencechallengedthesame onthegroundthat

90

deliberately it is not used by the prosecution as the original accused was


clearlyidentifiableinthesame.TheauthenticatecopyoftheCDpreparedby
FSLwassuppliedtothedefenceondemand.

167.

The observations in case of Tomaso Bruno and another V/s.

StateofU.P[2015CRILJ1690],citedsupraarenotapplicable.

168.

InthepresentcaseC.C.T.V.Footagewasaskedbythedefence.

Thesameisproducedonrecord.ThecopyofCDwassuppliedtothedefence.
Itismadeclearbytheprosecutionthattheimagesareuncleartoidentifythe
persontherefore,itisnotused.Thedefencewasatlibertyeithertoprovethe
sameindependentlythroughdefenceevidenceorbyshowingittothecourt
thatsomeotherpersonisseeninC.C.T.V.Footage.Haditbeenanidentifiable
imagethecourtwouldbeinpositiontoverifythesame.Butitwasnotused
inspiteofitsavailabilityatearlystageoftrial.Therefore,itcannotbesaid
thatitwasthebestevidenceandismissing,northatitwasdeliberateattempt
onthepartoftheprosecutiontoconcealthesame.

169.

In the present case, the C.C.T.V. footage was asked by the

defence.Thesameisproducedonrecord.ThecopyofCDwassuppliedtothe
defence.Itismadeclearbytheprosecutionthattheimagesareunclearto
identifythepersontherefore,itisnotused.Thedefencewasatlibertyeither

91

toprovethesameindependentlythroughdefenceevidenceorbyshowingit
tothecourtthatsomeotherpersonisseeninC.C.T.V.footage.Haditbeenan
identifiableimagethecourtwouldbeinpositiontoverifythesame.Butit
wasnotusedinspite of its availabilityatearlystage of trial.Therefore,it
cannotbesaidthatitwasthebestevidenceandismissing,northatitwas
deliberate attempt on the part of the prosecution to conceal the same.
Therefore, there is no scope to draw adverse inference against the
prosecution.

8.
170.

SpotPanchanama:
Crimesceneisanimportantpartofinvestigationifdoneproperly

to collect evidence in timely and accurate manner. It helps to understand


whathappened atthesceneandaidsintheinvestigationbeingcompleted
successfully.Toexcludethepossibilityoftamperingwiththephysicalmaterial
collectedsealingandseizureissignificant.Thespotpanchanamawasdrawn
at11.00to11.45a.m.PW31haddirectedat8.30a.m.tosecurethespot.
ArticleC,NandMwerecollectedsealedandseized.Thougheverybody
aroundcouldguessthatitwasaciditwasonlyafterreceiptofCAreports
concludedandconfirmedassulphuricacid,acorrosivepoison/liquid.These
seizedarticleswerehandedovertoPW24on03.05.2014whodeliveredthe
sametoFSLonthesameday.Thosesealedarticlesandtheirwrapperswere
scrumbledintopiecesandpowderwhenopenedinthecourtduringtrial.

92

171.

Inthecourtroomwhenthesealedpacketwasopenedtherewas

onemorebrownpaperpackinsidebuttheletterswerefounddestroyeddue
tothefumesofacidwhichwasnoticeableinthecourtroom.

9.
172.

InquestPanchnama:
An investigation under Section 174 is limited in scope and is

confinedtotheascertainmentoftheapparentcauseofdeath.Itisconcerned
withdiscoveringwhetherinagivencasethedeathwasaccidental,suicidalor
homicidalorcausedbyanimalandinwhatmannerorbywhatweaponor
instrument the injuries on the body appear to have been inflicted. It is
seriouslychallengedthatsomecontentsregardingtheinformationgivenat
thetimeoffirstadmissionofPreetiinhospital.Thedetailsoftheactofcrime
isnotnecessarytoberecordedintheinquestreport.Thequestionregarding
thedetailsregardingunderwhatcircumstancesthecrimewascommittedor
whoistheinformantandwhoarethewitnessesofthecrimeisforeigntothe
ambitandscopeofproceedingsunderSection174.Neitherinpracticenorin
lawisitnecessaryforthepersonholdingtheinquesttomentionallthese
details.Exh.61iswiththefindingsofobservationofacidburnsoverthedead
bodyofPreeti.

173.

The basic purpose of holding inquest on the dead body is to

ascertainprimafaciethenatureofdeathandtofindoutwhetherthereare

93

injuriesonthedeadbodyornot.

10.
174.

EffectofAcidonHumanBody:
Sulphuric acid is a Corrosive poison. This chemical is unique

becauseitnotonlycauseschemicalburnsbutalsosecondarythermalburns
asaresultofdehydration.Thisdangerouschemicaliscapableofcorroding
skin,paper,metalandevenstoneinsomecases.Ifcomesdirectcontactwith
theeyes,itcancausepermanentblindness.Itdestroysouterskinandenters
infleshundertheskin.

175.

Incaseofinhalationitcauseslifethreateningaccumulationof

fluid in the lungs i.e., pulmonary edema. Severe short term exposure can
resultintolongtermdamage.Itcontactcancause,painandburnsresulting
intopermanentscarring.Itsingestioncancausedeath.Itmeltsbonesand
maywearawaytoothenamelwhenbreathedin.

11.
176.

EffectofAcidonPreeti:
Thereisoverwhelmingevidenceonrecordtoprovenotonlythe

occurrenceoftheincidence,butalsothenatureoftheoffence.Themedical
evidence is catagorical to that effect that further complications developed
resultedintolossoflife.Theinjurieswerenotonlycausingdeathbutwould
have caused permanent disfigurement despite best medical treatment and
plastic surgeries. The photographs in Exh.154 depicts the effect of acid

94

completelydestroyingeyelids,lips,noseandskin.

177.

Skinisthemostessentialpartofhumanbodygivingshapeto

face with proper layering. Disturbances in layering causes change in look.


Manyacidsurvivorsdonotlooklikeanormalhumanbeinginspiteofplastic
surgeriesandskingraftings.Itwasapremeditatedplanbywhichaccused
threwacidonthefaceofPreetifromshortdistancewithaguranteethatby
anychanceshewillnotbelefttolooklikeasshedid.

178.

Preeti was a young beautiful and educated girl having bright

career.shewasasupportofherparentsintheiroldage.shewasselectedas
NursingLieutenantthroughcompetitiveexams.Itisnotonlythepainand
agonysufferedbyPreetiandlossofalifeofayoungbeautifulgirlhaving
brightfuturebutalsoalossofsupportofherparentsintheiroldage.Death
ofPreetihasnotonlyaffectedherlifebutalsothelifeofherdependentswho
rearedhertoachievecelebratedlife.

179.

Therewasnochancetoplasticsurgeonsincethehospitalization

of Preeti immediately after the incident. She was under the care and
observationsofDr.DhawalGandhiandDr.AshokGupta,theplasticsurgeons.
Theseverityofinjuriescanbeimaginedastheplasticsurgeonscouldnot
workonher.Thethrowofacidwaswithlargequantity,forcefulandfrom

95

shortdistancetoleavenoscopetomakehimunsuccessfulinhisattempt.Still
hervaliantbattlelastedfor30days.

180.

Defence counsel pointed out the difference in the nature of

tricklingmarksofacidburnsandoilburns.Shevehementlysubmittedthat
themarksseenonthehandofaccusedareofoilburn.Thetricklingmarks
cannot be seen in case of chemical burn. But no evidence is adduced to
substantiatethesame.Theliteraturepointedoutcannotbeconsideredasthe
finalopinion.TheopiniongivenbyPW23andhisteamstandsprovedandit
isthefinalopinionthatthecorrosivesubstancewasthecauseofburninjuries
ofaccused.

12.
181.

Detectionofacid
CAreportatExh.121i.e.,regardingclothesofPreetiandSunita

Dahiya showed the presence of acid. Exh.120 regarding hair which was
collectedafterthedeathofPreetialsoshowsacid.Art.C,thecontainer,was
withbrownishliquidwhichwasaconcentratedsulphuricacid. Incaseof
State of Maharashtra V/s. Jagdish B. Shah relied upon by the defence
counselis in respectofadangerousdrug. Thepresentcaseisentirelyon
different footing. There are eye witnesses to the incident as well as the
medicalexpertsalsoidentifiedthattheinjurieswereacidburns.Hence,the
observationisnotapplicable.

96

182.

The possibility of nitric acid was pointed out by the defence

counsel.Howtheyellowishcolouronunaffectedpartofthebodycanberead
toinfernitricacidisnotclarifiedbythedefence.Itisinrespectofyellowness
orpalenessofskinofthedeadbodywhichmaybeduetostarvationand
weaknessofthevictim.Theinjuriesarespecificallydescribedasofsulphuric
acid.ItisconfirmedbytheCAreportofscalphair. However,thesameis
foundinfavourofprosecution.

183.

Inthedefinitionof'corrosivepoison'givenin abookof

'Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology' authored by 'Lyon', 'H2 SO4',


sulphuric,acidisdefinedasheavyliquid,colourless,whenpure,whichin
concentrationactspowerfullyonorganicmatter,rapidlybreakingitupand
blackening it.When mixedwithwatergreatheatis evolved.Itisusedin
variousindustries.Adilutesolutionoftheacidisusedinaccumulators;itis,
thereforetobefoundineverygarageinthecountrywherefacilitiesexistsfor
thechargingofbatteries''.Wecanfurtherreadinthesamethat,poisoningby
itwasformerlyuncommonbutwithitsmoreextendeduseisbecomingmore
frequent.

184.

Thesameauthor'Lyon'canbereadtoinferpossibilityofnitric

acid.Theauthorhasrecognizedvitriolageandexplainedthatwhenthrown
ontheface,veryextensiveanddisfiguringinjuriesareproducedbytheacid
might result in blindness. On other parts of the body, extensive and very

97

painfulburnsarecaused.Theacidthathasenteredthemouthofthevictim
andbeenswallowedorrespiredmayproducefatalresults.Thesameisthe
caseoftheprosecution.

185.

Characteristic of the sulphuric acid is that if it spilt on the

clothingthefibersofthematerialgetcorrodedastocrumbleawaytopowder
betweenthefingersiftheacidisstrong.

186.

Theacidexertsitsmostimportantactionontissuewithwhichit

comesincontact.Thesymptomsappearimmediatelyoncontactbetweenthe
acidandthetissueinskin.Incaseofconcentratedsulphuricacidwhenit
comesin contact of skin, particularly water in skin, the temperature rises
whichreachesboilingpoint.Thenitcorrodesthetissuescausingburnsand
pain.Theliteratureisfoundinfavourofprosecution.Itisnotthecaseof
nitricacidbutisofsulphuricacidattack.ItcorrodedskinofPreetiaswellas
being ingested damaged her internal organs causing Tracheoesophageal
Fistula.

13.
187.

Medicalnegligence:
Itisveryimportantforthetreatingdoctortoproperlydocument

the management of a patient. Medical record keeping has evolved into a


science ofitself. This willbe the only wayfor the doctor tosowthatthe

98

treatmentwascarriedoutproperly.MedicalexaminationpapersfromMasina
Hospital show the efforts taken to treat and save Preeti. Bombay hospital
paperstooindicatethecareandeffortstakenforsurvivalofPreeti.Asacid
hadreachedherlungsandstomachcausingTracheoesophagealFistulaher
condition got deteriorated. No medical negligence is seen on the part of
doctorsinboththehospitals.

14.
188.

Pleaofalibi:
The accused has neither laid evidence nor could prove his

presenceatsomeotherplaceatthetimeoftheincident.Itisobservedbythe
Hon'bleSuprmeCourtincaseofSTATEOFHARYANAVersusSHERSINGH
ANDOTHERS[1981SupremeCourtCases(Cri)421],
''Whenanaccusedpleadsalibi,theburdenisonhimtoproveit
underSection103oftheEvidenceActwhichprovides:
103.Theburdenofproofastoanyparticularfactliesonthat
personwhowishesthecourttobelieveinitsexistence,unlessit
isprovidebyanylawthattheproofofthatfactshalllieonany
particularperson''.
189.

Incaseof BACHITTARSINGHANDANOTHERVersusSTATE

OFPUNJAB[2003SupremeCourtCases(Cri)233],itisobservedthat,
''AccusedBachittarSinghinhisreport,asnoticedabove,had
statedthatonthefatefuldayhewenttoirrigatehisfieldatnight
andcamebackat3.00a.m.whenhereceivedinformationfrom
hiswifethattherewasfiringinthevillagebutheignoredthe
same.HealsostatedthathiscousinPipalSingh,whowas
residinginthesamehaveli,hadcomeat6a.m.andinformed
himthatatabout1a.m.twounidentifiedpersonshadmurdered
thefamiliesofSukhwantSinghandBhupinderSingh.Itis
significantlyenoughtonotethattheaccusedBachittarSingh
neverexaminedanywitnesstoshowthathehadgonetothe

99

fieldtoirrigatehislandandcamebackat3.a.m.Hedidnot
examinehiswife,hismother(accordingtotheprosecutionstory
themotherisstillalive),noranybodytoprovehisalibi''.
Therefore,thislineofdefenceisnotavailabletotheaccused.Per
contraitactsasamissinglinkinthechainofcircumstancesofprosecution's
case.
15.

Unexplainedoldhealedinjuryscarsonthehandsandchest

oftheaccused.:
190.

Itisisacrucialpieceofevidence.Thereare7oldhealedscarson

the hand and chest of the accuse which he could not explained how he
received injuries. As held in case of STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Versus
SURESH[(2000)1SCC471],

''Thesignificantimpactofthesaidincriminatingcircumstanceis
thattheaccusedcouldnotgiveanyexplanationwhatsoeverfor
thoseinjuriesandtherefore,hehadchosentosaythathedidnot
sustainanysuchinjuryatall.Wehavenoreasontodisbelieve
thetestimonyofPW22Dr.NandKumar.Afalseansweroffered
bytheaccusedwhenhisattentionwasdrawntotheaforesaid
circumstancerendersthatcircumstancecapableofinculpating
him.Inasituationlikethissuchafalseanswercanalsobe
countedasprovidingamissinglinkforcompletingthechain''.
PW21examinedtheoldscarsoftheaccusedandinclearterm

opined that those were 6 to 12 months old. Accused was arrested on


17/01/2014whiletheincidenthappenedon02/05/2014.Thus,theinjuries
havebeencausedduringtheperiodcoveringthedateoftheincident.Itwas
notveryoldincident.Ifaccusedsaysthatthosearecausedoutofoilburnthe
burdenisonhimtogivethedetailsofthesame. He did not even mention
howandwherethoseinjurieswerecausedtohim.Inthissituationthedefene

100

ofoilburnisfoundfalse.Theinjuriesarecausedduetotheacidburnsduring
theincidentdated02/05/2014.

16.
191.

Statementu/s.313ofCr.P.C.:
Hon'ble Supreme Court in SWAPAN PATRA AND OTHERS

Versus STATE OF W.B.[(1999) 9 Supreme Court Cases 242], on untrue


explanationofevidenceobservedthat,
''Itiswellsettledthatincaseofcircumstantialevidencewhenthe
accusedoffersanexplanationandthatexplanationisfoundtobe
untruethenthesameoffersandadditionallinkinthechainof
circumstancestocompletethechain''.
192.

In case of JOSEPH S/O. KOOVELI POULO V/S. STATE OF

KERALA[AIR(2000)Supremecourt1608],itisheldthat,
''Duringthetimeofquestioningundersection313,Cr.P.C.,the
appellantinsteadofmakingatleastanattempttoexplainor
clarifytheincriminatingcircumstancesinculpatinghim,and
connectinghimwiththecrimebyhisadamantattitudeoftotal
denialofeverythingwhenthosecircumstanceswerebroughtto
hisnoticebytheCourtnotonlylosttheopportunitybutstood
selfcondemned.Suchincriminatinglinksoffactscould,ifatall,
havebeenonlyexplainedbytheappellant,andnobodyelsethey
beingpersonallyandexclusivelywithinhisknowledge.Oflate,
courtshave,fromthefalsityofthedefencepleaandfalse
answersgiventocourt,whenquestioned,foundthemissinglinks
tobesuppliedbysuchanswersforcompletingthechainof
incriminatingcircumstancesnecessarytoconnecttheperson
concernedwiththecrimecommitted''.
193.

ItisobservedbyHon'bleSupremeCourtin STATEOFPUNJAB

VersusKARNAILSINGH[(2003)11SupremeCourtCases271]that,
''thoughtheprosecutionhastoleadevidencetosubstantiateits
accusations,iffactswithinthespecialknowledgeoftheaccused

101

arenotsatisfactorilyexplaineditisafactoragainsttheaccused.
Noexplanationwasgivenbytheaccusedduringexamination
undersection313oftheCodeexceptmakingbolddenial.
Thoughthisfactorbyitselfcannotbesufficienttofastentheguilt
oftheaccused,whileconsideringthetotalityofthe
circumstancesthisiscertainlyarelevantfactor''.
194.

Appreciatingthestatementundersection313ofCr.P.C.itisheld

in ANTHONY D'SOUZA AND OTHERS Versus STATE OF KARNATAKA


[(2003)1SupremeCourtCases259]that,
''Intheirexaminationundersection313Cr.P.Ctheaccused
deniedtheprosecutionstoryintoto.Theydeniedthatthelorry
accidenthadtakenplace.Theyalsodeniedtohavereceivedany
injuries.Inshort,intheirsection313statementtheycompletely
deniedtheestablishedfactsandofferedfalseanswers.Bynowit
isawellestablishedprincipleoflawthatincaseofcircumstantial
evidencewhereanaccusedoffersfalseanswerinhisexamination
undersection313againsttheestablishedfacts,thatcanbe
countedasprovidingamissinglinkforcompletingthechain''.
195.

Inviewoftheabovesaidsettledprincipleoflawtheexplanation

occurredbytheaccusedbymakingcleardenialtoeveryquestionitbecomes
arelevantfactortoconnecttheaccusedwiththecrime.Thus,theexplanation
offeredbytheaccusedthatsuchburnmarksarepossibleduetooilburns
doesn'tfallinhisfavourbutcompelsthecourttoconsideritafalsehood,
forming a missing link. The bold denial and failure to explain the
incriminatingcircumstancesinculpatinghimgoagainsthim.

EVALUATIONOFEVIDENCEINLEGALFRAME:
1.
196.

Whetherdeathishomicidal:
The inquest panchanama at Exh.61, admitted by the defence,

102

shows burn injuries at various parts of the body including complete face
affectingoralcavity.,PW23Dr.ShrikantPaifromGurunanakHospitalnoted
theinjuriesandrecordedthehistorygivenbyrelativeinExh.110.Though
some coloumns are not filled in Exh.110 that doesn't affect the veracity
regardingtheconditionofthevictimatthattimenoticedbyhim.Ashewas
notabletomanagethepatientduetolackoffacilitiesshewasreferredto
MasinaHospital.WithinonehourshereachedMasinaHospital.

197.

PW22 Dr. Aniket Pote was at Masina Hospital who took the

historyfromPW11.Hefirstlygavetreatmentandthereafterthepaperswere
prepared.

198.

In case of SUKHCHAIN SINGH Versus STATE OF HARYANA

ANDOTHERS[2002SupremeCourtCases(Cri)961],ascitedbyLd.SPP
ithasbeenmadeclearthatitisnotthedutyofthedoctornorthelawexpects
fromthedoctortomentionthenamesoftherelatives.Itisheldthat,
''Itisneithertherequirementoflawnorusuallyexpectedthat
namesofalltherelativesoftheinjuredshouldbementionedin
themedicolegalreportpreparedbytheDoctorinhisdiscretion.
Thementionoftheinjuredhavingbeenbeatenbysomebodyin
thedoctor'sintimationtothepolicestationhasbeenusedtohold
thatinfactbythattimethewitnessdidnotknowthenameof
anyoftheassailantsandthatthecasewasablindmurdercase.
TheintimationgivenbytheDoctorwasregardingtheadmission
ofthepatientinunconsciouspositionrequestingthepoliceto
takenecessaryaction.Mentioningofthenamesorholdingthe
inquiryregardingtheoccurrencewasneitherthedutyofthe
doctornorusuallyexpectedfromhim''.

103

199.

Dr.DhavalGandhiPW27treatedPreetitill18/05/2013.Preeti

hadlostvisionandwasunabletospeakandbreath.Therewasnonegligence
onthepartofthedoctor.InBombayHospitalDr.AnitaHiremathandateam
headedbyDr.GuptatreatedPreetitill01/06/2013.Dr.AshokGuptaPW28
couldnotbedeviatedfromhistestimonythattheyallweretreatingPreetitill
herdeathbyallmeasures.Exh.154gavedetailsofmeasurestakentotreat
Preeti.

200.

MemorandumofpostmortemreportpreparedbyDr.Chikhalkar

clarifiesthecauseofdeathasduetocorrosivepoisonsupportedbyCAreport
inExh.121.Thequantityofacidwashugei.e.,2kg.carryingsuchahuge
quantitycanbeinferredonlywiththepremediatedplan.

201.

Cumulatively inspite of all the efforts taken by the team of

expertsthedeathwascausedduetocorrosivepoison,sulphuricacid.PW6,
PW7,PW9andPW11sawtheperpetratorthrowingacidonPreeti.Defence
has not brought any circumstance showing accidental or suicidal burns of
acid.Thechallengewasmadeinrespectofsulphuricacidclaimingasnitric
acid.Butacidisadmitted.Noothercausethanthedeathoutofflingingacid
canbeinferredinthecircumstances.

202.

Therefore,thedeathofPreetiwasfoundcausedbyacidthrown

104

onher.Itwasnotanaccidentbutapremeditateddeliberateattempt,itisa
culpablehomicideamountingtomurder.Hence,pointno.1isansweredinthe
affirmative.

2.

Whether accused committed murder of Preeti and caused

grievoushurttoinjuredpersonsincludingAmarsinghRathiandSameer
Shaikh,intentionallybythrowingacid:
203.

TheeyewitnessesPW6,PW7,PW9andPW11havegiventhe

account of incident witnessed by them. They had opportunity to see the


accusedwhenheturnedback.PW6,PW7andPW9werepresentonthe
platform for their routine work. PW11 and PW14 had come with Preeti.
Theyallwerepresentonplatform,thoughatdifferentplacesbutatthesame
timewhentheincidenttookplace.Aspersection3oftheIndianEvidenceAct
the conduct of witnesses is very natural. There is no reason for them to
concoctthecaseandtoplacethesamebeforethecourt.StatementsofPW6,
PW7,PW9,PW11andPW14wererecordedmuchbeforethearrestofthe
accused. It was only after the arrest of the accused in test identification
paradetheyidentifiedtheaccusedon12/02/2014asthepersontheyhad
seenflingingacidonPreeti.

204.

The omission of the words 'pakdo pakdo' in the statement of

PW14isbroughtonrecord.Itissubmittedbythedefencethatitisamaterial

105

improvement. In case of ALAMGIR Versus STATE (NCT DELHI) [2003


SupremeCourtCauses(Cri)165],
''Admittedly,thepieceofevidencewasnotavailableinthe
statementofthewitnessunderSection161Cr.PC,butdoesit
takeawaythenatureandcharacteroftheevidenceintheevent
thereissomeomissiononthepartofthepoliceofficial?Would
thatbetakenrecoursetoasamountingtorejectionofan
otherwisecreditworthyandacceptableevidencetheanswer,in
ourview,cannotbutbeinthenegative.Inthatviewofthe
matter,theevidenceofPW6thusoughttobetreatedas
creditworthyandacceptableanditistobeseentheeffectofsuch
anacceptability''.Thus,theomissionsaspointedoutisnot
material.Itisjustanelaborationofthefact.
205.

ThechallengethatPawanwastheoriginalaccusedisnotproved

byanymeansnotanydoubtiscreatedinthetestimonyofeyewitnesses.

206.

PW6wasalsoinjuredintheincident.Heshowedthespotofthe

incidentandalsoshoutedaftertheacidspiltonhimaskingPW7tochaseand
catchtheculprit.ItisanimmediatereactionofPW6.WhenPW7chasedthe
accused it was the natural conduct of the accused who turned back on
hearingshoutstocatchhimandtoseewhoisfollowinghim.Asthescarfhad
slideddownPW6,PW7,PW9andPW11gotopportunitytoseehisface.

207.

Accused hails from Narela, Delhi. There was no occasion for

PW6,PW7andPW9toseehimtillhisarrestorbeforetestidentification
parade. PW11 also did not visit the house of PW14 after the funeral of
Preeti.Nopossibilitiesisbroughttoraisedoubtthattherewasanopportunity

106

to these witnesses to see the accused before his arrest or before test
identificationparade.PW14hadseentheaccusedonlyfrombacksideand
describedhimapersonwiththinbuilt.Therefore,thoughhewasresidingin
BBMBColonyitwasnotpossibleforhimtoidentifyhim.

208.

PW16 had given sample of sulphuric acid to the accused on

14/04/2013whichwasbeforetheincident.Thisfactwasdiscoveredunder
section27ofIndianEvidenceAct.

209.

PW13wastoldbyPreetibefore15to20dayoftheincidentthat

accusedproposedherbutshedefiedhisproposalofmarriage.Shetalkedto
theaccusedaskinghimtomindhisownbusiness.PreetileftforMumbaion
01.05.2013. It shows that after Preeti defied the proposal of accused he
preparedaplanandpouredacid.

210.

TheprosecutionhasbroughtunilateralloveofaccusedforPreeti

asmotiveofthecrime.Victimhadhurttheegooftheaccusedwhichcaused
himtoprepareaplantodisfigureherfacesoasnottoleaveherwithher
beauty.TheaccusedusedacidasaweaponagainstPreetiwhorefusedhis
marriage proposal. It is an extreme form of man's reaction as Preeti
transgressed traditional gender norms. She was going to become a bread
winner.Shehadhurtanextremepatriarchalattitudewhichregardsawoman

107

aspropertycompletelydenyingherautonomy.TheattemptbyPreetitoassert
herwillwithoutpayingheedtotheaccusedmadetheaccusedtoplantotake
revenge.

211.

ThoughtheinformationgivenbyPreetitoPW13wasbefore15

to20daysoftheincident,whenPreetiisnotalivethatwillbeherstatement
under section 32 of Indian Evidence Act. No one can read the mind of a
personwhohascloseditbutthecircumstancescanleadtodrawinference.It
issufficienttoinferthemotiveoftheaccused.Throwingacidonherfacewas
gruesomacttodisfigureherfaceleavingherdeadinthesocietyevenifshe
wouldhavesurvived.''

212.

ItistheacidwhichcausedthedeathofPreeti.Art.Crecovered

fromthespotwasusedbytheaccusedtotakeconcentratedsulphuricacid
fromPW16lyingthathehasabusinessinthenameof'AnkurBatteries'.

213.

Themedicalevidenceofaccusedisofvitalimportance.Hecould

not explain the injuries on his right forearm flexor aspect. Evaluating the
injuriesonforearmthoseareclearlyfoundduetothesecondarydropsfallen
whenheflungacidonPreeti.Inhisstatementundersection313ofCr.P.C.
Whileansweringthequestionno.279and280heshowedignoranceabout
hisinjuries.Percontrawhileansweringquestionno.281heexplainedthat

108

suchtypesofmarkscanbecausedduetooilburn.Hestatedthathewas
working in a hotel Crown Plaza at New Delhi for six months before the
incident but did not state that when and how the injuries were caused.
Therefore,theexplanationisnotconvincingandsatisfactory.Inthewritten
statementalsohecouldnotbringanythingtoshowhowtheinjurieswere
causedbyanyothermeans.Thedefencestoryisalsonotputtothewitnesses
whogaveevidencethattheinjurieswerecausedbyacidburns.

214.

AccusedwasseeninthetraininwhichPreetitravelled.PW11

hadoccasiontoseehimtwice.Onceinthetrainandthereafteratthetimeof
theincident.

215.

Thetestidentificationparadeheldon12/02/2014byPW19is

not found doubtful. All the eye witnesses have identified the accused.
EvidenceofPW11andPW14iscorroboratedbyalltheeyewitnesses.There
was nodelayin holding testidentification parade.Prosecution has given
explanation as to how the investigation progressed and how the date of
identificationparadewasfixed.Therefore,thereisnodoubtinthemannerin
whichthetestidentificationparadewasheld.

216.

Theevidencerelatingtothetestidentificationparadebelongsto

thestageofinvestigationbypolicemainlyforthepurposeofgivingassurance

109

thatinvestigationisgoingonpropertrack.Thesubstantiveevidenceofthe
involvementoftheaccusedinthecaseistheiridentificationinthecourtroom
bythewitnessesduringtrial.Therefore,whileassessingtheevidenceofthe
test identification parade the court has to see whether there were sincere
efforts on the part of the magistrate to make sure that the ability of the
witnessestoidentifythesuspectisbeingtestedinfairandunbiasedmanner.
It has to be seen whether it caused any prejudice to the accused. Minor
deviation from the procedure lead down may not affect nor wipe out its
evidentiary value as held in case of STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Versus
SURESHcitedsupra.

217.

Theredoesnotappeartobeanysuchunfairaidorassistance

given to the identifying witnesses by police officers so as to facilitate the


identificationoftheaccused.Noroleofinvestigatingagencyisseenintest
identificationparade.Therewasnooccasionforinvestigatingofficertoshow
theaccusedorhisphotographtothewitnesses.Thewitnesseshaddescribed
theaccusedintheirstatementsundersection161ofCr.P.C.thoughnotgiven
details. Therefore, it corroborates the account of eye witnesses. Even if
evidence relating to the test identification parade is excluded all these
witnessesbeingeyewitnesseshaveidentifiedtheaccusedinthecourthall.

218.

Othercircumstancesinrespectofseizureofarticles fromspot

110

andclothesofPreetiandSunitaDahiyacouldnotbemadedoubtful.There
weremanyofficersintheinvestigatingteamactingonthedirectionofACP
Bhosale.Haditbeenofthesameinvestigatingofficerthetheoryofconcoction
ofstorycouldhavebeenimagined.Severalpoliceofficersinvestigatingthe
casecollectedvariousdifferentlinkswhicharefoundconnectingwitheach
otherformingacompletechain.

219.

Thusthefactsemergedfromtheevidenceledbeforethecourt

canbeculledoutasunder:
1.

PreetihaddisclosedtoPW13thataccusedhadaskedfor

marriage and she defied his proposal.He also askedher not tomove to
Mumbaibysayingthatelsethatwillnotbegood.
2.

Accused obtained sulphuric acid from PW16 on

14/04/2013inArt.C.
3.

On01.05.2013accusedtravelledbythetrainGaribrathin

whichPreeticametoMumbai.
4.

PW11sawtheaccusedinthetrainneartoiletholdinga

redbag.Healsotalkedtohim.
5.

After Preeti, PW11, PW14 and Sunita Dahiya alighted

fromthetrainaccusedcamefromthebacksideandtappedherbecauseof
whichsheturnedback.
6.

PW6hadseenaccusedholdingArt.Candflingingacidon

111

thefaceofPreeti.Somedropssplatteredonhimtherefore,heshouted.Preeti
alsoscreamed.
7.

After hearing shouts PW7 ran behind the accused but

couldnotchasehim.Hearingtheshoutsaccusedturnedback,hisscarfhad
slithereddownandcaphadfallen.Therefore,PW6,PW7,PW9andPW11
sawhisfacebuthecouldescape.
8.

PW14heardthescreamsofPreetiandsawather.Healso

sawtheaccusedrunningaway,butcouldnotseehisface.
9.

PW11andPW14liftedPreetiandbroughttothestation

mastersofficefromwhereshewastakentoGurunanakHospital.Thereafter
shewastakentoMasinaHospital.
10.

PW6, PW14 and one more lady were taken to Bhaba

Hospital for the injuries caused to them due to spilt of acid.They were
examinedandfoundwithacidburninjuries.
11.

AftercomingfromBhabaHospitalPW14lodgedFIR

12.

UponknowingabouttheincidentPW17informedittoPI

Dhopavkarwhodirectedtosecurethespottoconductspotpanchanama,spot
panchanama was conducted and articles from spot were seized including
Art.Candclothepieces.
13.

In Masina hospital clothes of Preeti and Sunita Dahiya

14.

ArticleseizedfromspotandclothesofPreetiandSunita

wereseized.

112

weredetectedwithsulphuricacid.
15.

SevereburnswerecausedtoPreetibecauseofwhichshe

wasunabletospeakandtherefore,couldnotgivestatement.Shehadnot
seenthefaceofthemiscreant.
16.

TheconditionofPreetiwasdeterioratedduetothesevere

acid burns, which affected her mouth, palate, oral cavity, oesophagus,
bronchusandlungs.
17.

On18/05/2013PreetiwasshiftedtoBombayhospital.She

wasundercareandtreatmentofteamofexperts.InspiteofalleffortsPreeti
succumbedtotheinjuriescausedduetoacidburns.
18.

When the statement of Nitu Solanki was recorded the

nameofaccusedcropedupininvestigation.
19.

AccusedwasbroughttoMumbaiandwasarrested.Hewas

foundwitholdhealedscarsofacidburns,6to12monthsold,onhisright
forearmflexoraspect.
20.

Onhisconfessionalstatementthefactofobtainingsample

ofacidfromPW16wasdiscovered.
21.

PW16identifiedtheaccusedandArt.Cinwhichaccused

hadtakenacidsamplefromhimon14/04/2013.
22.

Accusedcouldnotgiveexplanationtotheinjuriesonhis

handabovewristjoint.
23.

Theanswersgiveninrespectofinjuriesinthestatement

113

undersection313ofCr.P.C.arefalse.
24.

ByflingingacidonPreetiaccusedcausedherdeathand

alsoinjuredPW6andPW14.

220.

Lookingattheabovefactsitwasapreplannedmurderbythe

accused to take revenge as Preeti defied his proposal. Therefore, the


prosecution proved that it was a culpable homicide amounting to murder.
Hence,pointno.2isansweredintheaffirmative.

221.

Theverypurposeofamendmentofsection326ofI.P.c.istodeter

theaccusedfromcausingacidburnsoracidattacks.Asthepreviouslawwas
not recognizing acid attack having horrondeous effect on the victim it is
amendedwithstringentpunishment.InJuly,2013Hon'bleSupremeCourtin
thepetitionofacidattackssurvivorissuedguidelinesforthesellandpurchase
oftoxicliquid,theacid.Consideringtheeffectoftheacidonvictimphysically
andpsychologically,theschemeofcompensationisalsoframed.

222.

The victims of acid attack if survive they require to face the

consequencesforthewholelife.Duetotheirhorrificphysicalappearances,.
thesocietyalsolooksatthemasanalien.Theyfeelworthlessandembarassed
andtheirremaininglifeisruinedaftertheincident.Thesocialandeconomic
consequencesarealsodiscriminatingmakingthemtolivewithdisabilitylike

114

blindness.

223.

Section326Aisenactedforgrievoushurtcausedresultinginto

permanentdisfigurementanddisabilitybyacidattackwhichispunishablefor
notlessthan10yearsimprisonmentextendingtolifeandfine.

224.

Theoffenceundersection326AcannotbeconsideredforPreeti

asoutoftheacidattackbetweenshediedwhichisalreadydiscussed.No
offencecanbedecidedundersection326AofIPCasitwillamounttodouble
jeopardy.Theinjuredthoughreceivedacidburninjuries,thereisnoevidence
that those are grievous hurt causing disfigurement. Those are simply hurt
causedbytheacid.

225.

Section 326B is intentionally throwing or administering acid.

ThepresumptionisincorporatedinIndianEvidenceactassection114B.The
actoftheaccusedcannotbeconsideredasonlywiththeintentiontocause
hurtorgrevioushurttoPreeti.Itwasdoneinthecrowdedarea.Itwasa
liquidwhichwasusedbytheaccusedasaweapon.Therefore,thesplashand
spiltonthepersonsaroundwasobvious.TheinjuriescausedtoPW6and
PW14areoutofthesameacid.TheyweretakentohospitalExh.134,135
and 136 speaks in volume. PW18 had carried them to Bhaba Hospital.
Therefore, it cannot be considered as the act of negligence. The injuries

115

causedtoPW6andPW14arenotprovedasgrevioushurt.Thoseareonly
acid burns without causing any disfigurement or disability. Intentionally
throwingacidonPreetiwhichcausedhurttoPW6andPW14squarelyfalls
undersection326BofIndianPenalCode,1860.Thus,pointno.3and4are
answeredaccordingly.

226.

Thus, accused is held guilty for the offence punishable under

section302and326BofI.P.C.Here,Istopthejudgmenttoheartheaccused
onthequestionofsentence.ItisexplainedtotheaccusedinHindi.

Date:06.09.2016
227.

(A.S.SHENDE)
Addl.SessionsJudge,
CityCivil&SessionsCourt,

Gr.Mumbai.

The judgement was stopped to hear the accused on the

question of sentence. When he was asked to make submissions on the


questionofsentenceheraisedvoiceandsaidthathewantedCBIprobeofthe
caseandthathedoesn'tadmitanyverdict.Thereafter,hisadvocatetalkedto
him and he sat down without submissions on the point of sentence. The
defenceinformedthecourtthatshewillmakesubmissions.Accusedpresent
inthecourtconcededthesame.Defencecounselstartedmakingsubmissions
onthequestionofsentencewhichwasinterruptedbySPPbypointingout
that the ample opportunity should be given to both the parties to make
submissionsonthequantumofthesentence.Prosecutionandthedefence

116

counsel agreed to adjourned the matter till next day. Therefore,


pronouncementofsentencewasreservedtill07/09/2016inordertohear
prosecutionandtheaccusedonthepointofsentence.

Resumedon07/09/2016
SUBMISSIONONSENTENCE:
228.

Thejudgmentwasstoppedtoheartheaccusedonthequestion

ofsentence.Accusedwasaskedwhetherhewantstomakeanysubmissions
onthepointofsentence.Hesaid'No'.Defencecounselinformedthatshewill
makesubmissionsfortheaccused.Accusedconceded.

229.

On the question of sentence, the court has heard the defence

counselandSpecialPublicProsecutor.

SubmissionofSpecialpublicProsecutor:
230.

TheLd.SpecialPublicProsecutoradvancedsubmissionsstressing

thedemandformaximumpenaltyofdeathonthegroundthatthefactsand
circumstancesandthemodeandmannerofthecrimewarrantsonlydeath
penalty.Hehasalsopointedouttheprovisionsofsection354(3)ofCr.P.C.
introduced by way of amendment for the first time in the year 1973
regarding the introduction of provision enjoining upon the court to give
specialreasonsforawardingdeathpenalty.Hedrewtheattentionofthecourt
towardsthelandmarkdecisionoftheapexcourtincaseofBachansinghV/s.

117

State of Punjab[(1980) 2 SCC 684], which lays down that life


imprisonmentisaruleanddeathpenaltyisanexceptionandcriteriaasto
whenthecasecanbeconsideredasrarestorrare.Healsorelieduponthe
judgmentofapexcourtinthecaseofMachhiSinghandors.v/s.Stateof
Punjab[(1983)3SCC470],whereitwasemphasizedthat,
''thecourtshoulddrawabalancesheetofaggravatingand
mitigatingcircumstancesand,thereaftergivingmaximum
weightagetomitigatingcircumstances,arrivedatanappropriate
decisionbyfindingoutonwhichsidethebalancetilts''.
231.

The Ld. Special Public Prosecutor took the court through the

evidence adduced that there are aggravating circumstances in this case


justifyingnootherpunishmentexceptdeathpenalty.Accordingtohimthere
arenomitigatingcircumstancesatall.Theaggravatingfactsandreasonsin
thecaseofprosecutionpointedoutareasfollows:
1.

Proximityoftheconductoftheaccusedandtheincident.Itis

pointingoutthatinMarch,2013,PreetiwasselectedinIndianArmy
andtheincidenttookplaceon02/05/2013.
2.

In April, 2013, the accused procured sulphuric acid on false

ground.
3.

Priorto15daysofthetimewhenPreetileftforDelhi,heissued

cautionwarningnottogotoMumbaielseconsequenceswillbebadto
whichshedidnotpayheed.
4.

On01/05/2013Preetiboardedtrainwithdreamsinhereyes.

5.

At8.15a.m.,atplatformno.3,theaccusedwhowasallthewhile

118

chasingherhurledacidonPreeti.
6.

On01/06/2013Preetibreathedherlast.Hervaliantbattlelasted

for30daysinwhichsheunderwentunbearable,intolerablepainoutof
barbaricact.
7.

Preeti'svisionwaslost,facedisfigured,vocalchord,lungs,food

pipeandwindpipeweredamagedinjured.

232.

It is the submission that the incident is brutal than

butchery.Hegaveexampleofabutcherwhocutsagoat.Whenbutchercuts
agoat,thegoatishelplessandcannotcryorshout.Thenaturehasblessed
the goat with the absence of reason. The goat is fortunate that it doenst
understand what the butcher and customer talk about it and remains
happy. However, here Preeti was not even that fortunate. She was not
knowing forwhatshewasattacked.Shewas sufferingfrom mental
painandagonybutwasunabletoexpressedandexplain.Thiswashundred
percenthelplessness.Hefurthersubmittedthatheronlyfaultwasthatshe
rejected the proposal of the accused and she was attacked because his
attitudewasthateithersheshouldlovehimorquittheworld.Thiswashis
massage.Preetiwasforcedtogothroughphysicaland mental pain.The
entire society atlarge wasshocked.Outofunilateralloveandrejection
fromPreetitheaccusedbecamefurious.Heprocuredacidandwaitedtill
BandrawhereheattackedPreetiashewantedhernottogotoMumbai.
AllthewhilehecarriedsulphuricacidtillMumbai.Heisaheartless

119

person who did not even think about the life of Preeti who for no fault
becamethevictim.Sherejectedtheproposaloutofhisunilaterallove.He
consideredherashisproperty.Thepsychiatristscallsuchpersonsas'sadist'.
AccusedconsideredthatashehadchosenPreetishewashisasset.

233.

TheLd.SpecialPublicProsecutoralsoadvancedsubmissionsthat

theaccusedisa'sadist'.Heenjoysatypicalperversepleasurebytorturingthe
victim.Hegotpleasureinpainandagonyofvictim.Hismovingoutinthe
societymayresultdangeroustomanygirlswhocannotsavethemselvesfrom
such'sadists'.Thisperversitymustbecrushedwithironhands.

234.

The aggravating circumstances making the case exceptionally

cruelareputforthasunder:
1.

Preetiwasadefencelessyounggirl.

2.

TherewasnoprovocationorintimidationonthepartofPreeti.

3.

AccuseddecidedtoeliminatePreetiinthemostghastlymanner.
Hence,heismenacetothesociety.

4.

ItwasapreplannedmurderashewantedPreetiforhimandshe
refusedtorespondinhisway.

235.

He drew the attention towards the mitigating circumstance as

requirednamely:

120

1.

Extremementaloremotionaldisturbance.

2.

Youngage.

3.

Theprobabilitythattheaccusedwouldnotcommitcriminalact
ofviolenceconstitutingcontinuousthreattosociety.

4.

Theprobabilitythattheaccusedcanbereformed andcanbe
rehabilitated.

5.

Ifaccusedismorallyjustifiedincommittingtheoffence.

6.

Accusedactedundertheduressordominationofanotherperson.

7.

That the condition of the accused was mentally defective


impairing his capacity to appreciate the criminality of his
conduct.

236.

The Ld. Special Public Prosecutor has urged that there is no

mitigatingcircumstancesaslaiddownincaseofBachhanSinghandthereis
noneedtoconsiderthesame.

237.

AccordingtotheLd.SpecialPublicProsecutor,deservingpersons

aretobecondonedandundeservingarerequiredtobecondemned,whichis
fundamental policy of law. Relying on Salmond's Law of jurisprudence he
submitted that no wrong can go unrepented and no offence should go
unpunished.HerelieduponthejudgmentsincaseofStateofU.P.V/s.Shri
Kishan[2005SCC(Cri.)1568],pointingoutparano.7whichreadsas,

121

''theobjectshouldbetoprotectthesocietyandtodeterthe
criminalinachievingtheavowedobjectoflawbyimposing
appropriatesentence.Itisexpectedthatthecourtswould
operatethesentenceinsystemsoastoimposesuchsentence
whichreflectstheconscienceofthesocietyandthesentencing
processhastobesternedwhereitshouldbe''.Further,itisheld
inpara8,''impositionofsentencewithoutconsideringitseffect
onthesocialorderinmanycasesmayinrealitybeafutile
exercise.Thesocialimpactofthecrimee.g.,whereitrelatesto
offencesagainstwomen,dacoity,kidnapping,misappropriation
ofpublicmoney,treasonandotheroffencesinvolvingmoral
turpitudeormoraldelinquencywhichhavegreatimpacton
socialorderandpublicinterest,cannotbelostsightofandper
sayrequireexemplarytreatment.Anyliberalattitudeby
imposingmeagersentencesortakingtoosympatheticview
merelyonaccountoflapsoftimeinrespectofsuchoffenceswill
beresultwisecounterproductiveinthelongrunandagainst
societalinterestwhichneedstobecaredforstrengthenedby
stringofdeterrenceinbuiltinthesentencingsystem''.
238.

Healsodrewtheattentionofthecourttowardstheobjectand

intent of legislation while amending section 326 of I.P.C. for stringent


punishmentfortheoffenceofacidattackwhichisaglaringatrocityagainst
younggirls.Ld.SPPquotedSanskritscript,''Yatranaryastupujyanteramante
tatradevata'' explainingthatwherewomenareworshipedgodalsoliketo
residethere.

239.

Hesubmittedthatastheactoftheaccusedisgruesomeandit'sa

preplannedmurderofayoung,innocent,helplessgirlwithnofault,itisa
rarestofrarecase.Thus,theaccuseddeservesnothingbutthedeathpenalty
undersection302ofI.P.C..Furtherbyhisintentionalactheinjuredfatherof
Preetiandotherpersonsbythrowingacid.Therefore,hedeservesmaximum

122

penaltyundersection326BofI.P.C.

Submissionofdefencecounsel:
240.

ReplyingtothesubmissionsoftheLd.SpecialPublicProsecutor,

thedefencecounselpercontrasubmittedthattheaccusedhasnotcommitted
theoffence.Thefactsarenotproved.Thesignificantdocumentsarenotfiled
onrecordandthattheaccusedwasnotgivenanopportunitytodefendhis
case.Hewasrepresentedbylegalaidadvocate,whowasimposedonhim.

241.

Though she was reminded that the submissions are to be

advancedonthequestionofsentenceasonmerits,shewasheardatlength
andthecourthasalreadyfoundaccusedguiltyoftheoffence.Shecontinued
thesamesubmissions.Therefore,toremovethesenseofinjusticefromthe
mindofaccuseditisfoundnecessarytomentionthataccusedwaspreviously
representedbyaneminentlawyerworkingoncriminalside.Thecourtcannot
beobliviousofthefactthatthesaiddefencelawyerhadsoughtproductionof
documents i.e., the papers on which Preeti had scribbled in hospital and
C.C.T.V.footage.Thesamewassuppliedtothedefence.Thecourthasgiven
opportunitytodefencelawyertotakeinstructionsfromtheaccusedbefore
examination of witness starts. The accused was specially directed to be
producedtomeethisadvocate.PW1wascrossexaminedbyhim.Thereafter,
hewithdrewhisvakalatnama.Afterthesaidlawyerwithdrewhisappearance,

123

theaccusedwasinformed.Hedidnotengagedefencelawyerthereforelegal
aidwasprovidedtohim.Thecourttookcaretorecordthedepositiononlyin
thepresenceoftheaccused.Onhisrequesttheaccusedwasprovidedwith
onemorecopyofchargesheet.Ontherequestoftheaccusedandconsidering
the nature of charges, one senior lawyer advocate Shri Prakash Ware,
workingoncriminalside,wasappointedthroughlegalaid,withhisconsent.
ThecourtisthankfulforthecontributionofadvocateVarewhoattendedthe
matterpunctuallyandsincerelyandseriouslyconductedthetrial.

242.

Aftertenwitnesseswereexaminedandexaminationinchiefof

PW11wasovertheaccusedengagedthepresentdefenceadvocate.Ather
request the examination of witness was deferred and thereafter for the
completetrial,tilldatethepresentadvocaterepresentedtheaccused.Inspite
ofgivinglibertytorecallthewitnesses,examinedearliernosuchprayerwas
made.Theobjectionregardinglegalaidadvocateisraisedonlyatthetimeof
hearing on the question of sentence. Therefore, the court is compelled to
observethateachandeveryopportunitywasofferedtotheaccusedhebeing
undertrialprisoner.Hence,thesubmissionsbythedefencecounselinthis
regardarenottenable.

243.

The Ld. defence counsel submitted that the criteria regarding

'helpless woman' to consider the same as the rarest of rare case, is not

124

applicable as Preeti was not left to die by restraining her to move. The
accused is not menace to society and he is a young boy. There are no
aggravatingcircumstances.Hence,thelifeimprisonmentisthepunishment
availablefortheoffenceundersection302ofI.P.C.

244.

Further,boththepartieswentthroughthejudgmentofMadras

HighCourtincaseof,''Vinodhini'', CriminalAppealnumber361of2014,
Sureshkumar@AppuV/s.TheStaterepresentedbyInspectorofPolice,
Karaikal. The defence counsel submitted that the court has not awarded
deathpenaltyinspiteofflingingacidbytheaccusedon'Vinodhini'causing
herdeath.Hence,itisnotapplicable.

245.

Ld. Special Public Prosecutor submitted that in case of

'Vinodhini',thoughtheFIRwasregisteredbeforetheamendmentofsection
326ofI.P.C.TheHon'bleMadrasHighCourtseriouslyviewedthepointof
failuretoappreciatethecaseundertheperspectiveof'rarestofrare'case.
Thereisaclearmandatethatthesessionscourtshouldhavetreateditas
rarestofrarecase.Parano.33ofthesamejudgmentisreproducedhereas
pointedout,Howeveritwasanappealpreferredbytheaccusedtherefore,
court was left without option than to maintain the punishment of life
imprisonment.

125

246.

Sentence:Beforebeginningwiththediscussionitisimportantto

mention here that inspite of offering opportunity to the accused to make


submissionsonthequestionofsentenceon06.09.2016and07.09.2016he
personallydeclinedtomakesubmissionsandconcededthesubmissionsofthe
defencecounselthatshewillmakesubmissionsforhim.Therefore,thecourt
considersthesubmissionsofthedefencecounselasthesubmissionsofthe
accused.

247.

Itis acrucial stage in the criminal proceeding.Inthe judicial

processitisadifficultstageasinIndianLegalsystem,asobservedbythe
Apexcourtinthecaseof ShimbhuandAnr.v/s.StateofHaryana[2013
ALLMR(Cri.)3306(S.C.)]confersamplediscretiononthejudgestolevy
theappropriatesentence.Variousfactorslikethenature,gravity,themanner
and the circumstances of the commission of the offence, character of the
accused, aggravating as well as mitigating circumstances etc. cumulatively
constitutetheyardsticktodecidethesentence.

248.

Especiallywhenthecourtisconsideringthequestionofsentence

astowhetheritshouldbetheminimumwhichislifeimprisonmentorthe
maximumwhichisdeathpenaltyasdemandedbySpecialP.P.,thentheduty
of the court becomes more onerous, in view of the law of land that life
imprisonmentistheruleanddeathpenaltyisanexception,tobeawarded
onlyrarestofrarecases.Therefore,thiscourthastoensurethatthiscasefalls

126

intheexceptionalcategoryoftherarestofrarecase.

249.

Beforediscussingaggravatingfactsandmitigatingcircumstances

andreachingtoanyconclusion,itisnecessarytogothroughtheviewsofthe
Hon'ble Supreme Court on 'rarest of rare' as well the guidelines and the
principlelaiddowntherein.

250.

In BachanSinghvs.StateofPunjab [(1980)2SCC684] the

Hon'ble Supreme Court described the aggravating and mitigating


circumstanceinordertoascertainthecaseas'rarestofrare',asunder
Aggravating circumstances : A Court may, however, in the
followingcasesimposethepenaltyofdeathinitsdiscretion:
(a)ifthemurderhasbeencommittedafterpreviousplanning
andinvolvesextremebrutality;or
(b)ifthemurderinvolvesexceptionaldepravity;or
(c)........
(d).........
Mitigatingcircumstances:Intheexerciseofitsdiscretioninthe
above cases, the Court shall take into account the following
circumstances:
(1) That the offence was committed under the influence of
extremementaloremotionaldisturbance.
(2)Theageoftheaccused.Ittheaccusedisyoungorold,he

127

shallnotbesentencedtodeath.
(3)Theprobabilitythattheaccusedwouldnotcommitcriminal
acts of violence as would constitute a continuing threat to
society.
(4) The probability that the accused can be reformed and
rehabilitated.TheStateshallbyevidenceprovethattheaccused
doesnotsatisfytheconditions3and4above.
(5)Thatinthefactsandcircumstancesofthecasetheaccused
believedthathewasmorallyjustifiedincommittingtheoffence.
(6)Thattheaccusedactedundertheduressordominationof
anotherperson.
(7) That the condition of the accused showed that he was
mentallydefectiveandthatthesaiddefectunpairedhiscapacity
toappreciatethecriminalityofhisconduct.

251.

Inthematterof MachhiSinghv.StateofPunjab,[(1983)3

SCC470],theHon'bleSupremeCourtfurtherelaboratedtheprincipalofthe
rarestofrarecase.
32.Thereasonswhythecommunityasawholedoesnotendorse
thehumanisticapproachreflectedindeathsentenceinnocase
doctrine are not far to seek. In the first place, the very
humanisticedificeisconstructedonthefoundationofreverence
forlifeprinciple.Whenamemberofthecommunityviolatesthis
veryprinciplebykillinganother member,thesocietymaynot

128

feelitselfboundbytheshacklesofthisdoctrine.Secondly,ithas
toberealizedthateverymemberofthecommunityisabletolive
with safety without his or her own life being endangered
becauseoftheprotectivearmofhecommunityandonaccount
oftheruleoflawenforcedbyit.Theveryexistenceoftheruleof
law and the fear of being brought to book operates as a
deterrentforthosewhohavenoscruplesinkillingothersif it
suitstheirends.Everymemberofthecommunityowesadebtto
thecommunityforthisprotection.Wheningratitudeisshown
insteadofgratitudebykillingamemberofthecommunitywhich
protects the murderer himself from being killed, or when the
communityfeelsthatforthesakeofselfpreservation thekiller
has to be killed, the community may well withdraw the
protectionbysanctioningthedeathpenalty.Butthecommunity
willnotdosoineverycase.Itmaydosoinrarestofrarecases
whenitscollectiveconscienceisso shockedthatitwillexpect
theholdersofthejudicialpower centretoinflictdeathpenalty
irrespectiveoftheirpersonal opinionasregardsdesirabilityor
otherwise of retaining death penalty. The community may
entertainsucha sentimentwhenthecrimeisviewedfromthe
platformofthemotivefor,orthemannerofcommissionofthe
crime,ortheantisocialorabhorrentnatureofthecrime,suchas
forinstance:
I.Mannerofcommissionofmurder
33. When the murder is committed in an extremely brutal,
grotesque, diabolical, revolting or dastardly manner so as to
arouseintenseandextremeindignationofthe community.For
instance,
(i)whenthehouseofthevictimissetaflamewiththeend in
viewtoroasthimaliveinthehouse.
(ii)whenthevictimissubjectedtoinhumanactsof tortureor
crueltyinordertobringabouthisorherdeath.
(iii)..........................................
In Machhi Singh (supra), the following five tests were
laid down as parameters for the assistance of the Courts in

129

determining whether a case falls in the category of rarest of


rare:(SCC,page488)
I.Mannerofcommissionofmurder.

II.Motiveforcommissionofmurder.
III.Antisocialorsociallyabhorrentnatureofthecrime.
IV.Magnitudeofcrime.
V.Personalityofvictimofmurder.

252.

SufficeittonotethatallthefiveindicatorslaiddowninMachhi

Singh(supra),whicharerelieduponbythe prosecution,are againstthe


accused in the instant case and the each of the five indicates towards
impositionofthedeathpenalty.

253.

InDhananjoyChatterjeeV/s.StateofWestBengal[(1994)2

SCC220)]theHon'bleSupremeCourtobservedthat
15.Inouropinion,themeasureofpunishmentinagivencase
mustdependupontheatrocityofthecrime;theconductofthe
criminalandthedefencelessandunprotectedstateofthevictim.
Imposition of appropriate punishmentis the manner in which
the courts respond to the society's cry for justice against the
criminals. Justice demands that courts should impose
punishmentbefittingthecrimesothatthecourtsreflectpublic
abhorrenceofthecrime.Thecourtsmustnotonlykeepinview
the rights of the criminal but also the rights of the victim of
crimeandthesocietyatlargewhileconsideringimpositionof
appropriatepunishment.

254.

In StateofMadhyaPradeshvs.MunnaChoubey,[(2005)2

130

SCC710]itisobservedthat,

''11.Thecriminallawadheresingeneraltotheprincipleof
proportionalityinprescribingliabilityaccordingtotheculpability
ofeachkindofcriminalconduct.Itordinarilyallowssome
significantdiscretiontotheJudgeinarrivingatasentencein
eachcase,presumablytopermitsentencesthatreflectmore
subtleconsiderationsofculpabilitythatareraisedbythespecial
factsofeachcase.Judgesinessenceaffirmthatpunishment
oughtalwaystofitthecrime;yetinpracticesentencesare
determinedlargelybyotherconsiderations.Sometimesitisthe
correctionalneedsoftheperpetratorthatareofferedtojustifya
sentence.Sometimesthedesirabilityofkeepinghimoutof
circulation,andsometimeseventhetragicresultsofhiscrime.
Inevitablytheseconsiderationscauseadeparturefromjust
desertsasthebasisofpunishmentandcreatecasesofapparent
injusticethatareseriousandwidespread.
Proportionbetweencrimeandpunishmentisagoal
respectedinprinciple,andinspiteoferrantnotions,itremainsa
stronginfluenceinthedeterminationofsentences.Thepractice
ofpunishingallseriouscrimeswithequalseverityisnow
unknownincivilisedsocieties,butsucharadicaldeparturefrom
theprincipleofproportionalityhasdisappearedfromthelaw
onlyinrecenttimes.Evennowforasinglegraveinfraction
drasticsentencesareimposed.Anythinglessthanapenaltyof
greatestseverityforanyseriouscrimeisthoughtthentobea
measureoftolerationthatisunwarrantedandunwise.Butin
fact,quiteapartfromthoseconsiderationsthatmakepunishment
unjustifiablewhenitisoutofproportiontothecrime,uniformly
disproportionatepunishmenthassomeveryundesirablepractical
consequences.
Aftergivingdueconsiderationtothefactsand
circumstancesofeachcase,fordecidingjustandappropriate
sentencetobeawardedforanoffence,theaggravatingand
mitigatingfactorsandcircumstancesinwhichacrimehasbeen
committedaretobedelicatelybalancedonthebasisofreally
relevantcircumstancesinadispassionatemannerbythecourt.
Suchactofbalancingisindeedadifficulttask.Ithasbeenvery
aptlyindicatedinMcGauthav.StateofCaliforniathatno
formulaofafoolproofnatureispossiblethatwouldprovidea
reasonablecriterionindeterminingajustandappropriate
punishmentintheinfinitevarietyofcircumstancesthatmay
affectthegravityofthecrime.Intheabsenceofanyfoolproof
formulawhichmayprovideanybasisforreasonablecriteriato

131

correctlyassessvariouscircumstancesgermanetothe
considerationofgravityofcrime,thediscretionaryjudgmentin
thefactsofeachcase,istheonlywayinwhichsuchjudgment
maybeequitablydistinguished''.

255.

In JashubhaBharatsinhGohilv.StateofGujarat[(1994)4

SCC353]ithasbeenheldbythisCourtthat,
''inthematterofdeathsentence,thecourtsarerequiredto
answernewchallengesandmouldthesentencingsystemtomeet
thesechallenges.Theobjectshouldbetoprotectthesocietyand
todeterthecriminalinachievingtheavowedobjectoflawby
imposingappropriatesentence.Itisexpectedthatthecourts
wouldoperatethesentencingsystemsoastoimposesuch
sentencewhichreflectstheconscienceofthesocietyandthe
sentencingprocesshastobesternwhereitshouldbe.Even
thoughtheprincipleswereindicatedinthebackgroundofdeath
sentenceandlifesentence,thelogicappliestoallcaseswhere
appropriatesentenceistheissue.
Impositionofsentencewithoutconsideringitseffectonthe
socialorderinmanycasesmaybeinrealityafutileexercise.The
socialimpactofthecrimee.g.whereitrelatestooffencesagainst
women,dacoity,kidnapping,misappropriationofpublicmoney,
treasonandotheroffencesinvolvingmoralturpitudeormoral
delinquencywhichhavegreatimpactonsocialorderandpublic
interest,cannotbelostsightofandperserequireexemplary
treatment.Anyliberalattitudebyimposingmeagresentencesor
takingtoosympatheticviewmerelyonaccountoflapseoftime
inrespectofsuchoffenceswillberesultwisecounterproductive
inthelongrunandagainstsocietalinterestwhichneedstobe
caredforandstrengthenedbystringofdeterrenceinbuiltinthe
sentencingsystem.
256.

Inthecaseof GurvailSingh aliasGalaandAnr.vs.Stateof

Punjab,[(2013)2SCC713],theHon'bleSupremeCourtlaiddownthetest
andfactorsfortheawardofdeathsentenceasfollows:
19. .........................To award death sentence, the aggravating
circumstances(crimetest)havetobefullysatisfiedandthere
shouldbenomitigatingcircumstance (criminaltest)favouring

132

theaccused.Evenifboththetests aresatisfiedasagainstthe
accused,eventhenthecourt hastofinallyapplytherarestof
rarecasestest(RRTest), whichdependsontheperceptionof
thesocietyandnot Judgecentric,thatis,whether the society
willapprovetheawardingofdeathsentencetocertaintypesof
crimeornot.Whileapplyingthistest,theCourthastolookinto
varietyofactorslikesociety'sabhorrence,extremeindignation
andantipathytocertaintypesofcrimeslikerapeandmurderof
minor girls, especially intellectually challenged minor girls,
minor girlswithphysicaldisability,oldandinfirmwomenwith
those disabilities, etc. Examples are only illustrative and not
exhaustive.Courtsawarddeathsentence,becausethe situation
demands,duetoconstitutionalcompulsion,reflectedbythewill
ofthepeople,andisnotJudgecentric.

257.

In the matter of Ajitsingh Harnamsingh Gujral vs. State of

Maharashtra, (2011) 14 SCC 401], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has


elaboratedtheconceptoftherarestofrarecaseinfollowingparas
93. In our opinion a distinction has to be drawn between
ordinarymurdersandmurderswhicharegruesome, ghastlyor
horrendous.Whilelifesentenceshouldbegiven intheformer,
thelatterbelongstothecategoryoftherarestofrarecases,and
hencedeathsentenceshouldbegiven.....
94.Wefullyagreewiththeaboveviewasithasclarifiedthe
meaningoftheexpressionthe rarestofrarecases.Totakea
hypotheticalcase,supposingAmurdersBoveralanddispute,
thismaybeacaseofordinarymurderdeservinglifesentence.
However,ifinadditiontomurderingB,Agoestothehouseof
Bandwipesouthisentirefamily,thenthiswillcomein the
categoryofthe rarestofrarecasesdeservingdeathsentence.
Theexpressionthe rarestofrarecasescannot,of course,be
defined with complete exactitude. However, the broad
guidelines in this connection have been explained by various
decisions of this Court. As explained therein, the accused
deserves death penalty where the murder was grotesque,
diabolical,revoltingorofadastardlymannerso astoarouse
intenseandextremeindignationofthe community,andwhen
the collective conscience of the community is petrified, or
outraged.Ithasalsotobeseenwhethertheaccusedisamenace

133

tosocietyandcontinuesto doso,threateningitspeacefuland
harmoniouscoexistence. Thecourthastofurtherenquireand
believethattheaccusedcannotbereformedorrehabilitatedand
shallcontinuewithhiscriminalacts.Thusabalancesheetisto
bepreparedin consideringtheimpositionofdeathpenaltyof
the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and a just
balanceistobestruck.
258.

TheHon'bleSupremeCourtinthematterofMaheshvs.Stateof

M.P.[(1987)2SCR710]observedthat
5. It is against this background that the request of the
appellants'counselorinterferencewiththesentencehastobe
considered.TheHighCourtobservesthattheactoftheappellant
wasextremelybrutal,revoltingandgruesomewhichshocksthe
judicial conscience. And again as in such shocking nature of
crime as the one before us which is so cruel, barbaric and
revolting,itisnecessaryto imposesuchmaximumpunishment
underthelawasameasureofsocialnecessitywhichworkasa
deterrenttootherpotentialoffenders.
6.WesharetheconcernoftheHighCourt.Wealsofeelthatit
willbeamockeryofjusticetopermittheseappellantstoescape
theextremepenaltyoflawwhenfacedwithsuchevidenceand
suchcruelacts.Togivethelesserpunishmentfortheappellants
wouldbetorenderthejusticingsystemofthiscountrysuspect.
The common man will lose faith in courts. In such cases, he
understands and appreciates the language of deterrence more
thanthereformativejargon.Whenwesaythis,wedonotignore
the needforareformativeapproachinthesentencingprocess.
But here, we have no alternative but to confirm the death
sentence.Accordingly,wedismisstheappeal.

259.

In view of the submissions advanced and the principles laid

downtoconsiderthecaseas'rarestofrare',inordertodrawthebalance
sheetoftheaggravatingandmitigatingcircumstances,thiscourthastogoto
thefactsofthecase.

134

AGGRAVATINGFACTS:
1.
260.

Thepreplannedmanner
FromthefactsestablishedafterPreetideniedthe proposalfor

marriageaccusedstartedplanning.Heprocured2kg.sulphuricacidfrom
PW16onfalseground.Itshowsthathehadalreadycookedtheplanbefore
14/04/2013.Itwasnotasuddenact.ThenheexecuteditinMumbaiata
crowdedplacefromwherehecouldeasilyescape.Therefore,themannerof
offenceisapreplanned.

2.
261.

Exceptionalcruelattitudeandbrutality
The victimwas in helpless condition.She couldnotsmell the

intention of the accused. 2 kg. sulphuric acid flung on her face at once
corrodedthecompleteface,destroyingandmeltingeyes,nose,lipsandeven
teethenamel.Shewasnotatallinvolvedinanydisputeorenmitywiththe
accused.Itwasthegameofthemindoftheaccused,whowantedtohaveher
andwithoutconsideringthewillofPreetihedestroyedherbeauty,which
mighthave attractedhim. Since the incident tillher death,she couldnot
guesswhowoulddosuchthingswithher.EvenPW13NituSolankitookit
lightlywhenPreetiinformedherabouttheproposaloftheaccusedandhis
warningtonottogotoMumbai.Ifsuchsmallinfatuationcausedaccusedto
makePreetitofacetheextremepainphysicallyaswellasmentally,nogirl
aroundhimwillbesafe.Theactwasoutofhisownfantasywhichneitherbe
restrained nor reformed. The act was committed in extremely brutal,

135

grotesque,diabolical,revoltinganddastardlymannersoastoarouseintense
andextremeindignationofthecommunity.
3.
262.

Extremeperversity
Lovecannotcreateterror.Ifitwouldhavebeenapurelovethe

accusedwouldhavebeenhappytoseethevictimandhernearoneshappy.As
againstthishesnatchedherlifeanddevastatedherparents.Hewantedher
tosuffer.Itisnotalovebutaperversity.

263.

WhenPreetirefusedtojointhelifeoftheaccused,hedestroyed

thethingwhichheliked.TherewasnoprovocationonthepartofPreeti.The
evidenceofdoctorsdepictsthementalandphysicalconditionofPreeti.She
died of septicemia developed out of the acid burn injuries. The plastic
surgeonscouldneverperformanysurgerysincethedayofherhospitalization
till she breathed her last. The trauma, suffering and agony is beyond
imagination.

264.

Wecannotignorethestruggleofacidsurvivorwhohastomove

around with her face and body which are extremely deformed and look
terrible.Theyhideawayfromthesocietybecauseoftheirlooks.

265.

Acidattacksareevenworsethanrapeasthevictims,whoare

femalearesubjectedtohumiliationonadailybasis.Theyareshunnedand

136

ostracised.

266.

Theattacks themselvesarebrief,withtheperpetratorneeding

nothingmorethanabottleofacidandafewsecondstoflingitonthefaceof
hisvictim;butforthewomanwhoendureit,theeffectslastalifetime.

267.

Searingpain,lengthyandcostlymedicalprocedure,permanent

disfiguration and induced social isolation are amongst the most obvious
impacts.Thetraumaandloneliness,thoughlessvisible,followthiscrime.
Theconstantlongtermmedicalattentionwouldbearequisiteforsurvivalfor
no fault. Many victims die as a result of septicemia caused by severe
infections.

268.

Acid destroys the soft cartilage of noses and ears, causing

deafnessandlossofsmell,lipsdissolve,leavingteethexposedandvictims
unabletospeakoreat,eyelidsarequicklyandeasilyburnedaway,leadingto
blindness.Eventheskullisaffected.

269.

These effects do not only induce extreme but alsounbearable

pain.Italsowipesoutawoman'schanceoffindingahusband,startinga
family,orleadinganormallife.

137

270.

Disfiguration,particularlyintheface,neckandshoulders,isso

intensethatmanyvictimsendupascompleterecluse,eitherhiddenawayby
theirfamiliesortooashamedtostepoutinpublic.Nobodylikestolookat
theirface.
271.

Itisanattempttodeprivevictimforhernaturalbeautysono

oneelsewilllookatherormarryherbecausesheturnedhimdown.

272.

Until strongmeasuresareputinplace,IndianWomanwilllive

with the perpetual fear of meeting a similar fate as hundreds of their


countrywomen.

273.

Theoffenceofrapeandmurderareconsideredastheheightof

brutality and perversity and found as rarest of rate. But the intensity of
presentcrimeisatparrathermore.

274.

Acidnotonlydamagesthebodybutperforatesthesoulbeyond

anystretchofimagination.Itishighlyimprobablethatifthevictimofacid
attacksurvivessomebodymaymarryher.Ifshegetssuchfortune,itcannot
bedeniedthatherownchildmaygetsscaredofherbylookingatherface.
Whatelsecanbemorepainfulthansuchamomentforamother/woman.In
societyalsonobodywillcometoher.Itremindstheleprosypatientsinearlier
dayshidingthemselvesfearedofsocialboycott.Therecanbenothingmore

138

painfulthanthissituation.Duetotheirunacceptablelookstheyoftenfindit
difficulttogetemploymenttoo.

275.

Preetisurvivedfor30daysafterherintrepidbattlebecauseher

visionwas lostandshe wasnotabletoseehowshelooked.Haditbeen


possibleforhershewouldhavelostcouragetolivelifeearlier.

4.
276.

Antisocialnatureofthecrime:
Theconductoftheaccusedisnotonlyasimplicitoracidthrow

but it also shows a heartless act committed in a systematic preplanned


manner. The legislature is compelled to amend the law to introduce the
punishment for causing grievous hurt or disfigurement by intentionally
throwing acid. Causing death by such act cannot be equated with the
punishment provided for grievous hurt causing disfigurement or disability.
Therefore,itisofhighmagnitude.
Ld.APPquotedaSanskritscriptwhichIwouldliketocomplete
here as, ''Yatra naryastu pujyante ramante tatra devata, yastraitaastu na
pujyantesarvaastatrafalaahakriyaah''.ItisfromManusmritiwhichreadsas,
wheneverwomenaregiventheirduerespect,eventhedeitiesliketoreside
thereandwheretheyarenotrespected,allactionremainsunfruitful.
TheConstitutionofIndiaguaranteesequalityofstatustoIndian
womenwiththatofmen.Ittookagestocomeoutoftherigidsystemsinthe

139

society which were continued for centuries and which were against the
equality of women. The legal disabilities with regard to the marriage,
inheritance, guardianship andadoption have beenremoved.Now,she can
have economic rights. But the elements like accused make all the social
developmentstotakebackseat.Theattitudeisthoughnotfullyremovedfrom
thepatriarchalsociety,duetothefearoflawitissupressed.Itwilltaketime
to change the situation. But if such attitude is preserved and reared it
becomesacontagiousattitudewhichisdetrimentaltothesociety.Though,
womanhasbecomeindependentifsheisstillallowedtobecomeaproperty
ofman,alllawsandsocialdevelopmentswillbecomefruitlessanduseless.It
is an antisocial element deeply penetrating the very independence of a
woman guaranteed by the constitution. Thus this is purely an antisocial
crime.

5.
277.

Shockingtheconscienceofsociety:
Incaseof MachhiSingh(supra), theHon'bleApexCourtheld

that,thedeathpenaltymaybeimposedwhensociety'scollectiveconscience
isshocked,itwillexpectthe holderofjudicialpowercentertoinflictthe
deathpenaltyirrespectiveoftheirpersonalopinionasregards,desirabilityor
otherwiseofretainingdeathpenalty.Further,incaseof'Vinodhini',theneed
ofhourissensedbyHon'bleMadrasHighCourt.TheHon'bleBomabyHigh
Court in case of Kailas Sitaram Adagale V/s. State of Maharashtra

140

[MANU/MH/0152/2016]undersection307ofI.P.C.sentencedtheaccused
to life imprisonment considering the nature of crime of hurling acid, by
observing,
''Hence,thequestioniswhetherthisincidenthasshockedthe
collectiveconscienceofsociety.Theanswerisinaffirmative.It
hasnotonlyshockedtheMumbaicitybuttheentirenationas
such.Itwasafterthisincidentconsideringtheconditionof
survivorsandtheincreaseinnumberofoffencewiththeuseof
acidwhichiseasilyavailableandcheap,Hon'bleApexcourt
issuedguidelinesforregulationofsaleofacid''.

278.

Suchcrimeshaveputabigquestionmarkonthesafetyofentire

womanhood.Thegirlsarenotsafe.Ithascreatedafeelingofhelplessnesin
parents,in girls and in everysection of society.It has alsocreated afear
psychosisandleftascaronthesocialorder''.

279.

InDevenderPalSinghv.State(NCTofDelhi)[(2002)5SCC

234],theHon'bleSupremeCourtobservedthat
58.FromBachanSinghv.StateofPunjabandMachhiSingh
v. State of Punjab the principle culled out is that when the
collectiveconscienceofthecommunityissoshocked,thatitwill
expecttheholdersofthejudicialpowercentretoinflictdeath
penalty irrespective of their personal opinion as regards
desirabilityorotherwiseofretainingdeathpenalty,thesamecan
beawarded.
280.

In C. Muniappan V/s. State of Tamil Nadu, [(2010) 9 SCC

567],theHon'bleSupremeCourtwhilereferringtotheguidelineslaiddown
in BachanSingh and MachhiSingh(supra) emphasizedthatcriminallaw

141

requires strict adherence to the rule of proportionality in providing


punishment according to the culpability of each kind of criminal conduct.
Dismissingtheappealandmaintainingtheawardofdeathsentencetothe
Appellants,theHon'bleApexCourtobservedthat
92. Life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty an
exception. Therefore, the court must satisfy itself that death
penaltywouldbetheonlypunishmentwhichcanbemetedout
to a convict. The court has to consider whether any other
punishmentwouldbecompletelyinadequateandwhatwould
be the mitigating and aggravating circumstances in the case.
Murder is always foul, however, the degree of brutality,
depravityanddiabolicnaturedifferineachcase.Circumstances
underwhichmurderstakeplacealsodifferfromcasetocase
and there cannot be a straitjacket formula for deciding upon
circumstancesunderwhichdeathpenaltymustbeawarded.In
such matters, it is not only the nature of crime, but the
backgroundofcriminal,hispsychology,hissocialconditions,his
mindset for committing offence and effect of imposing
alternativepunishmentonthesocietyarealsorelevantfactors.
Itfurtherobserved
96. The aggravating circumstances in the case of Nedu @
Nedunchezhian (A2), Madhu @ Ravindran (A3) and C.
Muniappan(A4)arethatthisoffencehadbeencommittedafter
previous planning and with extreme brutality. These murders
involved exceptional depravity on the part of Nedu @
Nedunchezhian (A2), Madhu @ Ravindran (A3) and C.
Muniappan(A4).Thesewerethemurdersofhelpless,innocent,
unarmed,younggirlstudentsinatotallyunprovokedsituation.
No mitigating circumstances could be pointed to us, which
wouldconvinceustoimposealessersentenceonthem.Their
activities were not only barbaric but inhuman of the highest
degree. Thus,themannerofthecommissionoftheoffencein
thepresentcaseisextremelybrutal,diabolical,grotesqueand
cruel.Itisshockingtothecollectiveconscienceofsociety.Wedo
notseeanycogent reasontointerferewiththepunishmentof
death sentence awarded to Nedu @ Nedunchezhian (A2),
Madhu @ Ravindran (A3) and C. Muniappan (A4) by the
courtsbelow.Theirappealsareliabletobedismissed.

142

MITIGATINGCIRCUMSTANCES:
1.
281.

Youngage:
Inthefollowingcases,theHon'bleSupremeCourtinspiteofthe

youngageoftheaccusedconfirmedthedeathsentence:
1.

IncaseofSevakaPerumalv/s.StateofTamilnadu[AIR

1991SC1463],Hon'bleSupremecourtobservedthat,
''itisfurthercontendedthattheappellantsareyoungmen.They
arethebreadwinnersoftheirfamilyeachconsistingofayoung
wife,minorchildandagedparentsandthat,therefore,thedeath
sentencemaybeconvertedintolife.Wefindnoforce.These
compassionategroundswouldalwaysbepresentinmostcases
andarenotrelevantforinference.''
Likewiseinthecasesliketheoneinhandtheaccusedare
mostlyyoungageperson.Onthebasisofthebrutalityofcrimewhichwas
premeditatedagainstayoungdefencelessgirltheagefactorisnotrelevant.
2.

IncaseofDhananjoyChatterjeev.StateofWestBengal

[(1994)2SCC220],itisobservedthat,
''Inrecentyears,therisingcrimerate...........particularlyviolent
crimeagainstwomanhasmadethecriminalsentencingbythe
courtsasubjectofconcern....
Inouropinionthemeasureofpunishmentinagivencase
mustdependupontheatrocityofthecrime,theconductofthe
criminalandthedefencelessandunprotectedstateofthevictim.
Impositionofappropriatepunishmentisthemannerinwhichthe
courtsrespondtothesociety'scryforjusticeagainstthe
criminals.Thecourtsmustnotonlykeepinviewtherightsofthe
criminalbutalsotherightsofthevictimofcrimeandthesociety
atlargewhileconsideringappropriatepunishment.
282.

TheHon'bleSupremeCourtemphasisesthattheyoungageofthe

accusedisnotbyitselfadeterminativefactoragainsttheawardofthedeath
sentence. The cumulative circumstances have to be taken together and a

143

comprehensiveviewhastobetakenafterproperweightagebeinggivento
eachcircumstance. Consideringthegravityoftheoffenceyoungageofthe
accusedcannotbeadecisivefactor.

2.
283.

Possibilitytoreform:
The attempt of the accused out of his own fantasy cannot be

reformed.Thoughhehasnocriminalantecedents,heisrealsadist andthe
possibility of reformation is rare. The manner of attack was preplanned.
Therewasnoparticipationofvictiminstigatingtheaccusedtocommitthe
crime. It was simple incident to which the accused responded in cruel
manner.Forsuchsmallincidenthereachedtotheconclusiontouseahuge
quantityofacidtocommitcrime.HetraveledfromDelhitoMumbaitoget
theresultsasperhisplan.Heexecutedtheplaninbusycrowdedplacefrom
wherehecouldeasilyescape.Hecouldremainawayfrompolicemachinery
foralmost8months.Theactoftheaccusedofeliminatingthevictimisoutof
thesimplerefusalofPreetitogetmarriedtohim.Suchincidentsarevery
commoninSociety,whereaboyproposesbutagirlrefuses.Theboymayget
hurt.Hecanremaindisturbed,mayfeelpainbuthecomesoutofthesame.
Theboyscannotinsistthegirlstoacceptsuchproposal.

284.

In Maheshv.StateofM.P.[(1987)2SCR710],theHon'ble

SupremeCourtwhilerefusingtoreducethedeathsentenceobservedthus:
"Itwillbeamockeryofjusticetopermittheaccusedto

144

escapetheextremepenaltyoflawwhenfacedwithsuch
evidence and such cruel acts. To give the lesser
punishment for the accused would be to render the
justicingsystemofthecountrysuspect.Thecommonman
willlosefaithincourts.Insuchcases,heunderstandsand
appreciates the language of deterrence more than the
reformativejargon."
285.

Further, in Maru Ram V/s. Union of India, [AIR 1980 SC

2147],theHon'bleSupremeCourtsaid:
"85.Thequestion,therefore,isshouldthecountrytaketherisk
ofinnocentlivesbeinglostatthehandsofcriminalscommitting
heinouscrimesintheholyhopeorwishfulthinkingthatoneday
ortheother,acriminal,however,dangerousorcalloushemay
be,willreformhimself.Valmikisarenotborneverydayandto
expect that our present generation, with the prevailing social
and economic environment, would produce Valmikis day after
dayistohopefortheimpossible."

286.

Moreover,in Md.Mannanv.StateofBihar,[(2011)8S.C.C

65],theaccusedwasconvictedforrapeandmurder.TheHon'bleSupreme
Courtinthiscaseopinedthattheaccusedisamenacetothesocietyand
shallcontinuetobesoandhecannotbereformed.

287.

Womenarenotslavesnorjustapiece.Sheisalivingbodywith

blood,flesh,bonesandnervessameasmenhave.Theydofeelthesamepain.
Why a girl should fight just to survive. She can have her own choice for
everything. However, the mentality of the accused is chauvinistic, which
cannotbechanged.TodayPreetiandtomorrowsomeothergirlwillbehis

145

victim.Theaccusedneithershowedrepentancenorremorseforwhateverhe
did.Theplacechosen,thetoolusedandtimetakentocommitcrimewithout
provocation,suggestthattheaccusedcommittedacoldbloodedmurder.He
committedsuchgruesomecrimeforsuchpityreason.Itclearlyreflectsthat
thereishardlyanychanceofhisreformationandhedeservesnomercy.

3.
288.

Socioeconomicstatus:
It is a crime of violence against woman. Therefore, it cannot

dependuponthesocialstatusofvictimandaccused.Therefore,youngage,
socio economic condition and chance of reformation cannot become the
mitigatingcircumstancesforthepresentaccused.

289.

Regarding socioeconomic status of the accused not being a

determinative factor,in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Vinod Kumar,


[(2012) 6 SCC 770], the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the law as
under:
Thus,thelawontheissuecanbesummarisedtotheeffectthat
punishment should always be proportionate/commensurate to
thegravityofoffence.Religion,race,caste,economicorsocial
statusoftheaccusedorvictimarenottherelevantfactorsfor
determining the quantum of punishment. The court has to
decide the punishment after considering all aggravating and
mitigatingfactorsandthecircumstancesinwhichthecrimehas
beencommitted.Conductandstateofmindoftheaccusedand
age of the sexually assaulted victim and the gravity of the
criminalactarethefactorsofparamountimportance.Thecourt
must exercise its discretion in imposing the punishment
objectivelyconsideringthefactsandcircumstancesofthecase.

146

290.

Acidattackispossiblyoneofthemostheinouscrimeswhicha

human being can commit. It takes an elaborate degree of sadism and


depravitytoindulgeinsomethingascruelandinhuman.Thecriminaljustice
systemneedtobestricterinitshandlingofacidattackcases.

291.

Suddenlythereisanincreaseincasesofacidattack.Itisfound

asaneasytool.Itisspreadinglikeepidemic.Theeffectswillbemonstrousif
notcheckedatthisstage.Yetnodeterrencehascomeforwardinthesociety.
Therefore,thereisnofearinthemindsoftheoffenders.Ifthisisnotthe
stagetherewillbenoneinfuture.Disfigurementhasbecomecommonbut
deathsarerareoutofacidattack.

292.

Thus, the Court is compelled to hold that the mitigating

circumstanceshighlightingtheyoungageoftheaccused,hissocioeconomic
background, his clean antecedents and his chances of reformation, are
insignificantinthelightoftheaggravatingcircumstances.

293.

Atthisjuncture,itisworthnotethattheacidattackonwomanis

viewedseriouslybytheHon'bleMadrasHighCourtincaseofSureshkumar
@AppuV/s.State[CriminalAppealno.361of2014],inwhichconcernis
shownaboutvictim''Vinodhini'',whodiedinacidattack.TheHon'bleMadras

147

HighCourtobservedthat
So far as the quantum of punishment is concerned, the trial
court ought to have examined the question of sentence
elaborately to findout whether the offence committed bythe
accusedwouldfallwithintherarestofrarecasesaspropounded
by the Hon'ble High Court in Bachan Singh v. State of
Maharashtra, 1980(2) SCC 684 so as to impose the capital
punishmentontheaccused.Unfortunately,thetrialcourthasnot
madeanysuchexercise.theGovernmentofunionTerritoryof
Puducherry also has not made any appeal challenging the
quantumofpunishment.Therefore,weareunabletogointothe
questionastowhetherimposingdeathpenaltyontheaccused
wouldbetheonlyappropriatesentencefortheaccusedandalso
toexaminewhetherlifesentencewouldbeinadequate.Without
goingintothequestionastowhethertheaccusedisliabletobe
visitedwithdeathpenaltyornot,weareforcedtoconfirmthe
quantumofsubstantivesentenceandimposedbythetrialcourt
fortheoffenceunderSection302ofI.P.C''.
Itisfurtherobservedthat
''Therecurrenceofthesekindsofbrutalmurdersofyounggirls,
eitheroutofsexualobsessionorfailureofloveorforanyother
reasons will tend to create a sense of insecurity among the
womenfolk. We believe that in order to check recurrence of
these kinds of heinous crimes, the police and the other
authoritiesinthesystemshouldactwithironhandstobringto
book the culprits, to have speedy trials and to get deterrent
punishments.Weareawarethattherearecriticismsaboutthe
deterrent theory of punishment. But, that will not deter. Our
beliefthatthestoryof'Vinodhini'shallbeatleastalessonand
deterrenceforthosewhomayhaveasemblanceoffeelingto
commitsuchgruesomeactsagainstthewomenfolk.Afterall,
ourtraditionglorifiesourwomenasgoddesses''.
Conclusion
294.

Inlightofthefactsofthiscaseandthelawlaiddownbythe

Hon'bleSupremeCourtandHighCourts,thiscourtisoftheconsideredview
thattheinstantcasewithoutashadowofdoubt,fallsinthecategoryofthe
rarest of rare cases. The incident is extremely gruesome, revolting and

148

horrifying.Astrongmessageneedstobesenttothemiscreantsofsuchcrimes
againstwomenthatsuchcrimesshallnotbetolerated.Thiscrimeisfirstofits
kindinIndia.Thiscourtisnotintheknowledgeofanycaseinwhichacrime
ofsuchanaturehasbeencommittedandtheaccusedissentenced,tilldate.
Iftherisingtrendtowardssuchcrimeisnotcheckedatitsinception,itwill
havemonstrouseffectonsocietyandsoonitwillspreadwidely.Therefore,
deterrentpunishmentistheneedofthehour.Beingfullyawareofnatureof
the death penalty the court has reached the conclusion to award death
sentencetotheaccused.

295.

Asregardsthecompensationofthevictimthelegalaidauthority

informedthecourtthatamountofRs.2,00,000/hasbeenpaidtotheparents
ofPreeti.SpecialP.P.ShriUjjwalNikamalsoconcededthesame.Therefore,
thereisnoquestionofawardingcompensationundervictimcompensation
scheme.

296.

Accordingtotheconclusiondrawninabovediscussion,Iproceed

topassthefollowingorder:
ORDER
1.

Accused Ankur Narayanlal Panwar, is hereby convicted

u/s.235(2)ofCr.P.C.fortheoffencepunishableundersection302ofI.P.C.
andsentencedtodeath,andbehangedbythenecktillheisdead,subjectto
confirmationbytheHonbleBombayHighCourt.

149

2.

Accusedisherebyconvictedundersection235(2)ofCr.P.C.for

the offence punishable under section 326B of Indian Penal Code and
sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay fine of
Rs.5,000/(RupeesFiveThousandonly)indefaulttosufferR.I.for6months.
3.

Accusedisherebyacquittedu/s.235(1)ofCr.P.Cc.fortheoffence

punishableundersection326AofIndianPenalCode.
4.

TheMuddemalpropertyArt.A(colly.) clothes of victim, Art.B

(colly.)clothes of maternal aunt of victim, Art.C White plastic


container/'dabba',Art.DoneIDEAsimcard,Art.EoneblackcolouredNokia
mobile handset, Art.F one Docomo simcard, Art. G one Nokia company
battery of mobile phone, Art. H Airtel simcard, Art. J money purse,
Art.K(colly.)theHDFCvisacard,IdentifycardofParkHyattGoaResortand
SpainthenameofAnkurPanwar,onepassportsizephoto,10visitingcards,
onepocketcalenderfortheyear2010,onepocketcalenderfortheyear2011,
oneleafletofHotelHyatt,onecardwithLaxmiphoto,fourbusticketseach
Rs.15/, one confidential information from Axis Bank with personal
identificationnumber,OnelaundrybillofParkHyattGoawithsomephone
numberonthebackside,onepaperwithprintednameAnkurPanwaratpark
Hyatt,GoaResortandSpa,onepieceofpaperfromNotebookwithcontents
Iqbal Singh.dhanuk@ yahoo.com., Art. L the cotton swabs (of fluid from
spot),Art.Mcottonswabs,(soilcollectedfromspot)inplasticcoverandArt.
Nburntpiecesofclothesseizedfromspot bedestroyed aftertheperiodof
one year from the date of order of Hon'ble High Court in confirmation
proceedingsandincaseofappealaspertheordersofappeal,ifany,preferred
bytheparties.
5.

ThevaluablemuddemalpropertyArt.I(colly.)fourcurrencynotes

150

ofRs.10/fivecoinsofRs.10/insideonecurrencynoteofRs.5andonecoin
ofRs.5/andonecoinofRs.1/seizedinthiscaseshallstandforfeitedtothe
StateGovernmentandshallbedepositedintheStateTreasury,afterexpiryof
appealperiod.
6.

Substantive sentences imposed against the accused shall run

concurrently.However,thesentenceawardedtoaccusedundersection302of
I.P.C. remain suspended till its confirmation by the Honble Bombay High
Court.
7.

Inviewofsection28(2)ofCr.P.C.entireproceedingofthiscase

alongwith the property be sent to the Honble Bombay High Court for
confirmationofthesentenceagainsthim,attheearliest.
8.

Deathsentenceagainstaccusedshallnotbeexecutedunlessitis

confirmedbytheHonbleBombayHighCourt.
9.

Accused is entitled to setoff under section 428 of Code of

CriminalProcedure,1973fortheperiodofimprisonmentalreadyundergone,
i.e.,from17/01/2014tilldate.
10.

Jailauthorityisdirectedtotakenoteofthisorder.

11.

Accusedisherebyinformedthatheisentitledtopreferanappeal

against this judgment within the statutory period of appeal i.e, within 30
days.
12.

Fineamount,ifrecovered,bepaidtothecomplainantafterthe

appealperiodisover.

151

13.

Issuanceofcertifiedcopyofthejudgmentisexpedited.

14.

Copyofjudgmentbeprovidedtoaccusedfreeofcosts.

15.

Sessionscaseno.311of2014standsdisposedofaccordingly.

Date:08.09.2016
Dateofdirectdictationstartedfrom:04.09.2016onwards
Dictationcompletedon:08/09/2016
DateofordersignedbyH'Court:14/09/2016.

(A.S.SHENDE)
Addl.SessionsJudge,
CityCivil&SessionsCourt,
Gr.Mumbai.

152

''IaffirmthatthecontentsofthisPDFfilejudgmentsarethesame,wordto
word,aspertheoriginaljudgment.''
NameofStenowithpost
:
Mrs.RupaliS.Bhor
HigherGradeStenographer
NameoftheJudge(withCourtno.) Kum.A.S.Shende
AdditionalSessionsJudge,Court
RoomNo.18
DateofpronouncementofJudgment :08/09/2016
JudgmentsignedbytheP.O.On
:14/09/2016
Judgmentuploadedon
:16/09/2016