A Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, comprising Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, has partly allowed a criminal appeal regarding a 2014 double murder involving an acid attack. The Court upheld the appellant’s conviction under Sections 304, 326-A, and 452 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, balancing the gravity of the crime with the appellant’s time served and lack of criminal history, the Court modified the sentence from life imprisonment to a fixed term of 14 years of rigorous imprisonment.
Background of the Case
The incident occurred on the intervening night of May 7 and 8, 2014, at approximately 2:00 AM. The informant, Dinesh Verma, was sleeping in a thatched shed outside his house when he heard the screams of his mother, Phoolan Devi, and his sister-in-law, Suman Devi. Upon rushing inside with a torch, he witnessed the appellant, Jagdamba Harijan, pouring a liquid substance over the two women, who were lying on the same cot.
Both victims suffered severe deep burn injuries and succumbed to septicemia during their medical treatment later that month. A written complaint was filed on May 9, 2014, and the appellant was subsequently arrested on May 13, 2014. On August 30, 2018, the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Pratapgarh, convicted the appellant under Sections 304, 326-A, and 452 IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant’s Arguments: The defense argued that the First Information Report (FIR) was delayed, as the incident occurred on the night of May 7/8, but the FIR was lodged on May 9. It was submitted that the FIR was written with the assistance of a private advocate, raising doubts about its veracity.
The defense contended that the primary witnesses (P.W.-1 and P.W.-2) were not actual eyewitnesses due to the darkness, and their testimonies contained discrepancies regarding the source of light. Furthermore, it was argued that the victims died of septicemia resulting from insufficient medical treatment, meaning the acid attack was not proximate to the death, and thus Section 304 IPC could not be applied.
Alternatively, the defense prayed for leniency, highlighting that the appellant had been in jail for nearly 14 years, had a wife and son to support, and had no prior criminal history.
Respondent’s Arguments: The State asserted that the case involved a double murder where two lives were cut short by an aghast acid attack. The prosecution maintained that the guilt of the appellant was successfully proven through the unshakeable testimonies of eyewitnesses and corroborated by medical exhibits. The State argued that any inconsistencies pointed out by the defense were immaterial and did not adversely affect the prosecution’s case.
Court’s Analysis
On Acid Attacks: The Court noted the severe nature of acid attacks, categorizing them as a form of gender-based violence. The judgment referenced the Supreme Court’s observations in Parivartan Kendra vs Union of India, quoting:
“These instances unveil that the State has failed to check the distribution of acid falling into the wrong hands even after giving many directions by this Court in this regard.”
On Cause of Death: The Court rejected the argument that medical negligence caused the deaths. Medical testimonies confirmed that the victims suffered massive burn injuries and the Court noted that “acid burn injuries is the immediate cause of septicaemia”. The Court firmly concluded that both deceased died due to septicemia caused by deep acid burn injuries.
On FIR Delay and Legal Assistance: The Court found the delay in lodging the FIR to be sufficiently explained, noting that prioritizing the medical treatment of severely burned victims was a “natural human behavior” and a call for duty. Citing the Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Gian Chand, the Court observed:
“Delay in lodging the FIR cannot be used as a ritualistic formula for doubting the prosecution case and discarding the same solely on the ground of delay in lodging the first information report.”
Addressing the argument regarding legal assistance, the Court held that an illiterate informant seeking the assistance of an advocate to write the FIR is natural. The Court specifically observed that:
“…the F.I.R. being lodged with an advocate’s assistance does not by itself dilute the credibility of the said F.I.R., the only caveat that the same requires careful scrutiny to ensure that the same is not malicious or motivated.”
On Eyewitness Credibility: The Court found the testimony of the informant natural and reliable. Addressing the defense’s claim that related witnesses are interested witnesses, the Court cited Masalti vs. State of U.P. to reaffirm that evidence cannot be mechanically rejected solely on the ground of being a partisan or close relative. The Court also dismissed the minor discrepancies in witness statements, noting that corroboration with mathematical niceties cannot be expected.
On Sentencing: Addressing the alternative plea for leniency, the Court examined its constitutional power to modify a life sentence to a fixed term. Relying on Supreme Court precedents including Union of India v. V. Sriharan and Shiva Kumar v. State of Karnataka, the Court affirmed its authority to impose a fixed-term sentence of more than 14 years.
Decision
The High Court upheld the conviction of the appellant under Sections 304, 326A, and 452 IPC. However, observing that the appellant had been incarcerated for over 13 years and 9 months, possessed no criminal history, and had familial responsibilities, the Court chose to balance the gravity of the crime with the prospect of reformation.
The Court directed that the maximum sentence of life awarded to the appellant be reduced to a fixed term of 14 years of Rigorous Imprisonment. The fines imposed by the trial court were affirmed. The appeal was partly allowed, and the appellant will be released after completing the 14-year sentence, provided he is not required in any other case.
Case Details
- Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1841 of 2018
- Bench: Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary
- Appellant: Jagdamba Harijan
- Respondent: State of U.P.
