Dismissed

Shanker Singh v. State

Rajasthan HC20 May 2024CRLR/800/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Acid attack causing grievous facial burns; conviction under Section 326 IPC upheld on appeal with reduced sentence. The High Court found concurrent findings of guilt free from perversity and declined to reduce sentence further despite partial service, citing victim compensation principles.

What the court decided

AI extract

Shanker Singh Vs State — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:23636]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.800/2003

¶4

Shanker Singh S/o Shri Naga Singh, Aged about 22 years, R/o Gram Somalpur, P.S. Ramganj, Ajmer (Confined at Central Jail, Ajmer)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Rajasthan through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. Khurshid Ahmed Khan, Adv. Ms. Vandana Sharma,Adv.
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. S.S. Mahla, PP
		Mr. B.N. Sandu, Adv.
		Mr. Parth Sarthi Sandu, Adv.
		Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Sandu,Adv.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶11

Reserved on :: 06/03/2024 Pronounced on :: 20/05/2024

¶12

The matter pertains to an incident in 2001, and the present criminal revision petition has been pending since 2003. 2. The present criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the order dated 02.07.2003 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Ajmer, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Appellate Court’) in Criminal Appeal No.4/2003, whereby the learned Appellate Court has partly allowed the appeal upholding the conviction of the revisionist-petitioner under Section 326 of IPC and reduced the sentence of five years simple imprisonment to three years & six months simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.40,000/- in place of Rs.50,000/- and in case of default of

[2024:RJ-JP:23636]

[CRLR-800/2003]

(2 of 9)

payment of fine, to undergo one-year simple imprisonment further. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial court’), in Criminal Case No.51/2002, has convicted and sentenced the revisionist-petitioner under Section 326 of IPC for five years simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.50,000/- and in case of default of payment of fine, to undergo one-year simple imprisonment further.

¶17

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Prem Singh filed an FIR No.328/2001 registered at Police Station Ramganj, District Ajmer, for the offence under Section 307 IPC with the allegation that when they were sleeping on the upper floor of the house then accused Shanker Singh came up with acid and threw it over his brother Shayer Singh and ran away from the spot. 4. During the investigation, the injured Shayer Singh was medically examined. After the investigation, the police filed the charge sheet before the learned Magistrate against the accused under Section 307 IPC. After that, the case was sent to the Sessions Court, Ajmer. The Sessions Judge, Ajmer, did not find the case to be fit for the commission of offence under Section 307 IPC and remitted the matter to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ajmer, for trial of the offence under Section 228 Cr.P.C. After the conclusion of the trial, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, convicted the accused vide order dated 09.01.2003 under Section 326 of IPC and sentenced him for five years simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.50,000/- and in case of default of payment of fine, to further undergo one-year simple imprisonment. After that, the learned Special Judge, SC/ST, Ajmer, in appeal, modified the order sentence passed by the learned trial Court by reducing it to the

[2024:RJ-JP:23636]

[CRLR-800/2003]

(3 of 9)

extent of three and half years of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.40,000/- and in case of default of payment of fine, to undergo one-year simple imprisonment further. Hence, this revision petition.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that both the courts below have erred in arriving at a finding of guilt of the accused petitioner under Section 326 of IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the evidence of prosecution witnesses relied upon by learned courts below was not genuine, and further, the FIR was delayed. The trial court did not appreciate the evidence properly and convicted the accused under Section 326 of IPC.

¶23

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner in alternative prays that accused-petitioner has now attained the age of 45 years and occurrence relates back to 2001 and the accusedpetitioner has already served the sentence of about 1 year 8 months and 25 days out of maximum sentence of 3 years six months simple imprisonment awarded to him. Therefore, sentence awarded to accused-petitioner may be reduced to period already undergone by him.

¶24

On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor justifies the conviction and sentence of the petitioner passed by the learned courts below under Section 326 of IPC.

¶25

The scope of revisional jurisdiction is limited, and a court can reevaluate the evidence if the conclusions are baseless or based on improper appreciation of evidence.

¶26

This fact is undisputed that injured PW-4 Shayar Singh sustained acid burn injuries on his entire face and neck; this fact

[2024:RJ-JP:23636]

[CRLR-800/2003]

(4 of 9)

is corroborated by the medical evidence of PW-11 Dr Sumer Singh, who examined the injured Shayar Singh on 12.11.2001. After reviewing the petitioner, the concerned Doctor has opined the injuries sustained by Shayar Singh were grievous. PW-11, in his statement, also stated that due to burn injuries, there was permanent disfiguration on the face of the injured Shayar Singh. In his statement, he specifically stated that injuries sustained to injured were due to acid burn.

¶31

The other eye-witnesses, PW-1 Prem Singh, PW 2 Kalu Singh, PW-3 Vijay Singh, PW 5 Vijay Singh S/O Chotu Singh & PW-6 Gyan Singh, in their examination-in-chief, have categorically deposed that injured Shyar Singh received acid burn injuries on his face.

¶32

PW-13 Dr B.N. Laddha, in his examination-in-chief, has also stated that injured Shayar Singh was admitted to the causality department on 12.11.2002, and he had acid burns on his face. He has further deposed that he treated the victim for acid burn injuries. In his cross-examination, he deposed that the injuries sustained by Shayar Singh were due to an acid burn. Dr B.N. Laddha has also exhibited the hospitalisation record of injured Shayar Singh as Ex-P/13, which also shows that injured Shayar Singh remained hospitalised from 12.11.2001 to 04.12.2001, having 15% acid burn. Thus, it is established the fact that PW-4 sustained a grievous injury on his face and neck due to an acid burn.

¶33

As far as the guilt of the petitioner in the alleged crime is concerned, the prosecution has mainly relied upon PW-1 Prem Singh, PW-2 Kalu Singh, PW-3 Vijay Singh S/O Devi Singh, PW-5

[CRLR-800/2003]

[2024:RJ-JP:23636]

(5 of 9)

Vijay Singh S/O Chhotu Singh and PW-6 Gyan Singh. 13. The accused-petitioner did not raise any specific defence in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 14. PW-1 Prem Singh, in his statement, stated that he saw the accused petitioner running with a container at night, and Shyar Singh was screaming.

¶38

PW-2 Kalu Singh concurred with the statement of PW-1 Prem Singh and reiterated what has been stated by PW1 Prem Singh. The witnesses had also said that before the incident, an altercation occurred between the petitioner and PW 1 Prem Singh, PW-3 Vijay Singh S/O Devi Singh and himself. The accused petitioner threatened the witnesses to bear the consequences. After that, the incident of acid burning occurred.

¶39

PW-3 Vijay Singh S/O Devi Singh also corroborated the statement of PW-1 Prem Singh and PW-2 Kalu Singh and stated that he also saw the accused petitioner running from the place of occurrence and heard screams of the injured Shayar Singh. 17. PW-4 Shayar Singh is injured and, in his statement, has categorically stated that before the incident, an altercation took place between his brother and the petitioner. After that, between 12:00 am and 01:00 am, the accused petitioner splashed acid on his face, resulting in injuries to his eye, neck and face. 18. PW-6 Gyan Singh, in his examination-in-chief, has also corroborated the version of PW-4 Shayar Singh and specifically stated that between 01:00 am and 01:30 am, he heard the voice of Shayar Singh and PW1 Prem Singh told him that he saw the accused petitioner running from the place of occurrence. He also

[2024:RJ-JP:23636]

[CRLR-800/2003]

(6 of 9)

deposed that he saw injuries on the face of Shayar Singh, and Shayar Singh was screaming in pain.

¶44

PW-5 Vijay Singh S/O Chhotu Singh, in his examination in chief, has concurred with the version of PW-4 Shayar Singh and PW-6 Gyan Singh. All the witnesses had deposed that the altercation occurred on the same day at 8.00 pm between the accused petitioner and PW-1 Prem Singh, PW-2 Kalu Singh, and PW-3 Vijay Singh S/O Devi Singh. After that, the incident took place. The witnesses also deposed that after an altercation with PW-1 Prem Singh, PW-2 Kalu Singh, and PW-3 Vijay Singh S/O Devi Singh, the petitioner threatened to bear the consequences, and after that, the incident occurred.

¶45

In the relevant cross-examination, PW-1 Prem Singh has denied that he was not present at the place of occurrence. Apart from that, there is no other relevant cross-examination. He has also reiterated that he lodged an FIR (Exhibit P/1). In Exhibit-P/1, it has been categorically stated that FIR could not be lodged on the 12th as the injured was admitted to the hospital; the delay of one day in lodging the FIR is sufficiently explained, and no crossexamination has been made on this aspect to PW-1 Prem Singh. 21. PW-2 Kalu Singh, in his relevant cross-examination, had stated that before the incident, he did not know the accused, and he saw the accused on the date of the incident when the altercation occurred between PW-1 Prem Singh, PW-3 Vijay Singh S/O Devi Singh and himself. He has denied his absence at the place of occurrence. Similarly, PW-3 Vijay Singh S/O Devi Singh stated that before the incident, he did not know the petitioner and saw the petitioner for the first time on the same day.

[2024:RJ-JP:23636]

[CRLR-800/2003]

(7 of 9)

PW-4 Shayar Singh, in his cross-examination, had also stated that before the day of the incident, he did not know the accused petitioner, Shanker Singh. He later came to know that the petitioner threw the acid at his face.

¶50

PW-5 Vijay Singh S/O Chhotu Singh, in his crossexamination, has shown his ignorance about any animosity between the accused petitioner and the other witnesses PW-1 Prem Singh, PW-2 Kalu Singh, and PW-3 Vijay Singh S/O Devi Singh.

¶51

PW-6 Gyan Singh, in his cross-examination, had also stated that he did not know the accused petitioner before the incident, and Kalu Singh, Vijay Singh, and Prem Singh told him that Shanker Singh had thrown acid at Shayar Singh and saw him running after the incident.

¶52

Thus, from the version of PW 1-Prem Singh, PW 2-Kalu Singh, and PW-3 Vijay Singh S/O Devi Singh, it is apparent that the accused-petitioner spilt acid at injured Shayar Singh. PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 did not know the accused petitioner before the incident. They saw the accused petitioner in the evening when the argument occurred between them and the accused petitioner, and the accused petitioner, Shanker Singh, threatened them to bear the consequences. All three witnesses did not have any previous enmity with the accused petitioner. Therefore, there is no compelling and probable reason to disbelieve their testimony. From the evidence of PW-4 Shayar Singh, it is also evident that he had no enmity with the petitioner. In his cross-examination, he candidly admitted that his brother told him that an altercation occurred between the accused petitioner and his brother Kalu

[2024:RJ-JP:23636]

[CRLR-800/2003]

(8 of 9)

Singh and other witnesses Prem Singh and PW-3 Vijay Singh S/O Devi Singh.

¶57

It seems from the prosecution story that due to a quarrel between the petitioner and the witnesses, as mentioned above, the petitioner threw acid at the injured Shayar Singh, misidentifying him as one of the persons with whom the quarrel occurred.

¶58

Both the courts below, after going through the entire material available on record and after thoroughly appreciating the evidence of material witnesses, PW-1 Prem Singh, PW-2 Kalu Singh and PW-3 Vijay Singh, son of Devi Singh, have concluded that the petitioner has committed an offence under Section 326 IPC, I do not find any perversity in the findings above arrived at by both the Courts below.

¶59

Therefore, the revision petition of the petitioner challenging the conviction under Section 326 of IPC is not maintainable. In the matter of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Vijay Kumar (2019) 5 SCC 373: AIR 2019 SC 1543 , the Apex Court dealt with the adequacy of the sentence and at para 13 of its judgment held as under:-

¶60

"After going through the material on record, we are of the considered view that the accused respondents have rightly been held guilty, and their conviction under Section 326 IPC and Sentence for five years at least needs no interference, but at the same time, we are disposed to address on victim compensation which may at least bring same solace to the victim for the sufferings which she had suffered. "

[2024:RJ-JP:23636]

[CRLR-800/2003]

(9 of 9)

Recently, The Apex Court, in the case of Rajendra

¶65

Bhagwanji vs State of Gujrat (Criminal Appeal Nos 24812482 of 2024) vide judgment dated 9.5.2024, after dealing with the scheme of Victim compensation provided in section 357 of the Cr.P.C. observed as follows:-

¶66

"If payment of compensation becomes a consideration for reducing sentence, then the same will have a catastrophic effect on the criminal justice administration. It will result in criminals with a purse full of money to buy their way out of justice, defeating the very purpose of criminal proceedings."

¶67

In the instant case, the learned Appellate Court has convicted the accused for three years, six months of simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.40,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one-year simple imprisonment.

¶68

The Appellate Court has rightly sentenced the accusedpetitioner, the nature of the crime committed by the petitioner and the injury caused to Shayar Singh proportionate with the sentence passed by the learned Appellate Court. As a result of the acid burn, the injured Shayar Singh has sustained permanent disfigurement of his face. This Court finds no compelling reasons to reduce the petitioner's sentence.

¶69

Resultantly, the present criminal revision petition stands dismissed

¶70

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶71

Ramesh Vaishnav/86

Shanker Singh v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Shanker Singh v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sonu Kanwar D/O Shri Chatar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajbahadur Singh Gurjar @ Raj Kasana Son of Bharat Singh, Adopted Son of Shri Ashok Kumar Gurjar, Vs State of Rajasthan

Udayram S/O Shri Surajmal Meena, Vs State of Rajasthan

Ajru S/O Rukdeen Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt Dharma Devi W/O Ramcharan Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajveer @ Rajkamal @ Kadda Son of Manak Vs State of Rajasthan