Criminal Appeal Nos. 324 and 686 of 2007. Case: Kailas Sitaram Adagale and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Criminal Appeal Nos. 324 and 686 of 2007 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Nasreen S.K. Ayubi, Appointed Advocate and For Respondents: A.S. Pai, A.P.P. |
| Judges | V. K. Tahilramani, Actg. C.J. and Dr. Shalini Phansalkar Joshi, J. |
| Issue | Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Sections 357(1), 357(3); Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Sections 307, 326(A) |
| Judgement Date | February 18, 2016 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
Dr. Shalini Phansalkar Joshi, J.
-
Criminal Appeal No. 324 of 2007 is preferred by the Original Accused, who stands convicted by the Judgment and Order dated 5th March 2007 of Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in Sessions Case No. 308 of 2005 for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I. for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to suffer S.I. for two months, challenging his conviction and sentence. Whereas, Criminal Appeal No. 686 of 2007 is preferred by the State seeking enhancement of sentence of the Appellant. Thus, as both these Appeals are arising out of one and same Judgment of the Trial Court, they are being decided by this common Judgment.
-
Brief facts of the Appeals can be stated as follows:-
PW-1 Neha Malviy, at the time of incident in the year 2005, was serving at Info-sys Company in Kalyani Nagar as Customer Care Associate. Prior to that, she was serving on the same post at Wipro Spectromat. At that time, her Company had provided Indica Car for commuting facility. Appellant herein was working as Driver on the said Indica Car. Hence, she was knowing him. He used to create intimacy and friendship with her, which was not approved by her. She was avoiding him. Even after she left the job in Wipro Company on 17th December 2004 and joined new job in January 2005 in Info-sys Company, Appellant used to make phone call to her on her mobile and express his liking and one sided love for her. She was not giving any response to him. Even then he used to wait for her on her way to the College and Company. He was also making attempt to talk with her. She had informed about this to her parents and they had asked her to ignore him and not to talk with him.
-
Despite this conduct of PW-1 Neha towards the Appellant, Appellant was keen to develop his intimacy and friendship with her. Towards that attempt, on 31st January 2005, at about 5:30 to 5:45 pm, when PW-1 Neha was proceeding in the company car to her office, she received phone call on her mobile from the Appellant making enquiry as to where she was and he informing her that he wanted to meet her. PW-1 Neha made it clear that she does not want to meet him and disconnected the phone. Even then, when she reached in her office at Kalyani Nagar and entered the campus of the Company, the Appellant came there in front of her and insisted that he wanted to talk with her. PW-1 Neha again refused to talk with him saying that she wants to go to office. Even then, Appellant insisted that he would not take her to any other place; she should only come and sit in his cab as he wanted to say something to her. He further threatened her that if she refuses, he will create scene. Since PW-1 Neha was a new employee in the Company, she did not want to create a scene in the campus of the Company. She also thought that there would be no harm to listen to what Appellant wants to say and, therefore, she went with him and sat in his car.
-
When they were in the car, the Appellant again started stating that he wants to marry with her and settle his life. He was also ready to persuade her parents, if she wanted. PW-1 Neha refused and asked him as to how he dare to say like that. Thereupon, Appellant removed one bottle, which was containing acid, and threw that acid on her face. The acid not only burnt her face and eyes, but it also dropped and spread on her neck, both hands, legs and other parts of the body. When she shouted for help, PW-3 Shoyeb Shaikh and PW-4 Amjad Sayyed, who were working there as Drivers and present nearby, rushed to her help. They caught hold of the Appellant, who was trying to run away from the spot. They handed over Appellant to the Security Supervisor of the Company. PW-1 Neha was then taken to Jahangir Hospital. There PW-7 Dr. Noella Godimho, who was on duty as Casualty Medical Officer, attended her and on examination, found that she has sustained deep chemical burns on forehead, right eye, eye-lid, nose, both cheeks, lips, right ear and many other parts of the body. After preliminary treatment, she was admitted in the I.C.U. PW-9 Dr. Shirish Daddi conducted multiple operations on her, including the plastic surgery. She was in the hospital till 23rd February 2005 and even thereafter she was not completely cured and was undergoing treatment, at the time of recording of her evidence also.
-
In the hospital itself, on the same day, her complaint came to be recorded by PW-10 PSI Pratap Poman On her complaint (Exhibit-26), C.R. No. 46 of 2005 was registered against the Appellant. During the course of investigation, the Spot Panchanama was made. From the spot, the acid bottle, burnt pieces of seat cover and foam were seized under Panchanama (Exhibit-54). PW-10 PSI Poman then seized clothes of PW- 1 Neha under Panchanama (Exhibit-56). On the arrest of the Appellant on the same night, PW-10 PSI Poman seized his clothes also under Panchanama (Exhibit-67). The Appellant was also referred to the Sassoon Hospital, as there were some minor burn injuries of acid on his person. As a part of further investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded. Seized muddemal articles, including the bottle of the acid recovered from the spot, were sent to Chemical Analyzer by PW-11 PSI Mohan Nanavate. On the receipt of C.A. Report (Exhibit-71), disclosing that residues of Sulfate-ion from Sulfuric Acid were detected on the muddemal articles, Charge-Sheet came to be filed in the Court against the Appellant.
-
On committal of the case to the Sessions Court, the Trial Court framed charge against the Appellant vide Exhibit-2. Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, raising the defence of denial and false implication. In support of its case, the prosecution examined in all 11 witnesses. The Appellant also led evidence of the Chemical Analyzer Suhas Bakare and on appreciation of this oral and documentary evidence on record, as adduced by the prosecution and the Appellant, Trial Court was pleased to hold the guilt of the Appellant to be proved beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable...
To continue reading
Request your trial