Teerathraj vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3336 of 2024
Teerathraj
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Puttu Lal Misra, Anjali Dubey, Rajiv
Mishra, Soniya Mishra Soni Pathak
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 13
[A.F.R.]
HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C./415(2)
BNSS challenging the validity of a judgment and order dated 30.09.2024,
passed by Sri Prabhat Kumar Yadav, the learned VI Additional Sessions
Judge, Raebareli in Sessions Trial No. 100255 of 2017, arising out of Case
Crime No. 86 of 2017, under Section 326-A IPC, Police Station Salon,
District Raebareli, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the
aforesaid offence and he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 10 years and to pay Rs. 20,000/- as fine.
2. The Court had heard submissions of Ms. Anjali Dubey, the learned
counsel for the appellant on 01.10.2026, 07.10.2026 and 14.10.2026.
However, as Ms. Dubey could not advance submissions convincingly, the
matter was fixed for 26.10.2026 for hearing further submissions, on which
date the court requested Sri Chandra Bhushan Pandey, Advocate to go
through the record, prepare submissions and assist the court in deciding the
matter.Accordingly, Sri Chandra Bhushan Pandey, Advocate and Sri
Mohammad Asif Khan, learned AGA-I on behalf of the State have advanced
submissions.
3. The aforesaid case was instituted on the basis of a written complaint dated
17.03.2017 given to the police stating that while the complainant was
returning from his shop at about 5:30 p.m. on 17.03.2017, the appellant
Teerath Raj, who is from the family of the complainant, and two brothers-in-
law of Teerath Raj came on a motorcycle and poured acid on the
complainant's father and the accused persons ran away.
4. The victim was examined medically in Primary Health Center, Salon,

CRLA No. 3336 of 2024
2
Raebareli on 17.03.2017. The medico-legal examination report (Exhibit A-2)
mentions acid burn injuries present on 32cm x 6 cm area around the neck,
10cm x 4cm area on the right side of head just above the right ear, 36cm x 6
cm on the chest on lower end of right shoulder, 6cm x 4cm on left wrist, 10
cm x 4 cm neck to lower end of spine vertebra, 30 cm x 6 cm right side mid
thigh, 3cm x 4 cm on right lower rib. The report states that all injuries were
kept under observation and referred to General Surgeon in District Hospital,
Raebareli for expert opinion and further management. The injuries were
caused by some acidic substance, the duration of the injuries was fresh and
the burn was around 35%. The doctor had prepared a referral slip referring
the victim to District Hospital, Raebareli, which has been marked as Exhibit
A-3.
5. On the basis of the written complaint, an FIR (Exhibit A-5) was lodged
on 17.03.2017. The investigating officer submitted a charge-sheet on
17.05.2017 against the appellant for the offence under Section 326-A IPC.
6. The complainant was examined as PW-1. He reiterated the FIR version.
7. The victim was examined as PW-2. He stated that he knows the appellant
Teerath Raj and he is his uncle's son and resides in the same village. He
stated that on the date of the incident, he was returning from his shop at
about 5:30 p.m. As soon as he reached near the tower near the village, the
appellant came there on a motorcycle along with his two brothers-in-law
Neeraj and Pankaj. The appellant was sitting on the pillion seat, he was
carrying acid in a jug and he poured the acid on the victim Tara Prasad
Mishra. PW-2 fell down and the three accused persons ran away towards the
toll plaza. The victim was taken to the Community Health Center, Salon,
Raebareli. He stated that he had shown the injuries to the doctor. He had
suffered acid burns on his head, right hand, neck, chest, back, right hand and
right thigh and he had suffered a laceration on his ear. Keeping in view his
serious condition, he was referred to the District Hospital, Raebareli, from
where he was discharged after 3-4 days. The victim further stated that he
was getting himself treated privately since thereafter.
8. One Shravan Kumar was examined as PW-3 and he stated that he had
reached on the spot upon hearing the cries of the victim Tara Prasad.
9. The doctor who had treated the victim and had conducted his medico-
legal examination in CHC Salon, was examined as PW-4. He stated that the
victim had suffered burn injuries all around the neck, towards right side of
the head, above right ear, on chest, right shoulder, on right side of chest, left
wrist and arm, on the back and on the right thigh. The burn injuries were
fresh, caused by an acid and the extent of burn was about 35%. Acidic odour

CRLA No. 3336 of 2024
3
was present. PW-4 stated that he had referred the victim to a general surgeon
in the district hospital for expert opinion and treatment. He had prepared the
injury report and the referral slip.
10. During cross-examination, PW-4 stated that the injuries could have been
caused by acid, but in absence of a chemical examination having been
conducted, he could not tell by which substance were the injuries caused.
11. The Head Constable who had registered the FIR was examined as PW-5
and the Investigating Officer was examined as PW-6.
12. In the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant
denied all the allegations and said that a dispute regarding partition of
property existed between him and the victim, in which he had succeeded.
Due to this animosity, the victim implicated him in a false case. He further
stated that he did not have any motorcycle, the motorcycle bearing the
number as mentioned by the victim does not belong to him and no villager
has come forward to prove the allegations as the allegations are false.
13. The trial court held that the prosecution evidence proved the allegation
of commission of offence under Section 326-A IPC beyond reasonable doubt
and convicted and sentenced the appellant accordingly.
14. Sri Chandra Bhushan Pandey, Advocate has submitted that the medical
report, the referral slip and the statement of the doctor PW-4 indicate that the
victim was referred to a general surgeon in District Hospital, Raebareli, but
there is absolutely no evidence to indicate whether the victim got himself
treated in the District Hospital, Raebareli or in any other higher centre. The
victim stated that he had remained admitted to a hospital for 3-4 days only.
He has submitted that there is no evidence to prove that the victim had
suffered any grievous hurt in the incident and, therefore, the offence under
Section 326-A IPC is not made out.
15. Sri Pandey, Advocate has also doubted the correctness of the prosecution
story for failure of the prosecution to recover the jug allegedly used in
commission of the offence, to recover the clothes worn by the victim at the
time of the incident, which would have got damaged in case acid was poured
on the victim and lack of any other evidence to corroborate the allegations
levelled by the complainant and the victim.
16. Sri. Mohammad Asif Khan, the learned AGA-I has advanced
submissions opposing the appeal and he has submitted that the injured
person's testimony is sufficient to prove that the appellant threw acid upon
the victim and thereby caused burn injuries to him. However, the learned
AGA-I has fairly produced the relevant extract of the case diary before the

CRLA No. 3336 of 2024
4
court which contains a medical certificate dated 30.03.2017, issued by the
Medical Officer PHC Salon, Raebareli, which states that the victim Tara
Prasad Mishra was examined on 30.03.2017 at 12:30 p.m. He had been
brought by a police constable and there was no injury on any part of his
body. Therefore, it appears that the injuries suffered by the victim on
17.03.2017 had disappeared by 30.03.2017 and this also fortifies that the
victim had not suffered any grievous hurt in the incident.
17. Section 326-A IPC, under which the appellant has been convicted and
sentenced, reads as follows: -
" 326-A. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid, etc .—
Whoever causes permanent or partial damage or deformity to, or
or maims or disfigures or disables, any part or parts of the
burns
body of a person or causes grievous hurt by throwing acid on or
by administering acid to that person, or by using any other means
with the intention of causing or with the knowledge that he is likely
to cause such injury or hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term which shall not be less than ten
years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and with fine:
Provided that such fine shall be just and reasonable to meet the
medical expenses of the treatment of the victim;
Provided further that any fine imposed under this section shall be
paid to the victim."
18. Causing permanent or partial damage or deformity to, or burning or
maiming or disfiguring or disabling any part or parts of the body of the
victim or causing grievous hurt by throwing or administering acid to the
victim is the first essential condition to attract Section 326-A IPC.
19. Grievous hurt is defined under Section 320 IPC, as follows: -
" 320. Grievous hurt.—The following kinds of hurt only are designated
as "grievous":—
(First)— Emasculation.
(Secondly)— Permanent privation of the sight of either eye.
(Thirdly)— Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear,
(Fourthly)— Privation of any member or joint.
(Fifthly)— Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any
member or joint.
(Sixthly)— Permanent disfiguration of the head or face.
(Seventhly)— Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth.
(Eighthly)— Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the
sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or
unable to follow his ordinary pursuits."

CRLA No. 3336 of 2024
5
20. Although the medical evidence establishes that the victim had suffered
burn injuries on 17.03.2017 and he was referred to District Hospital,
Raebareli, there is absolutely no evidence regarding any further treatment
undergone by the victim. There is no evidence regarding any findings
recorded by the expert surgeon of District Hospital, Raebareli regarding the
nature of injuries suffered by the victim. The medico-legal examination
report dated 30.03.2017 issued by PHC Salon, Raebareli shows that no
visible marks of the injuries remained after 13 days and, therefore, I am of
the view that the injuries suffered by the victim were not grievous in nature.
21. In Maqbool v. State of U.P. , (2019) 11 SCC 395, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held that: -
" Section 326-A carries title of "voluntarily causing grievous hurt by
5.
use of acid" whereas Section 326-B does not carry any such
indication in the title regarding the nature of injury as grievous. But
on closer analysis, it can be seen that both the sections provide for
eight types of injuries — (i) permanent damage, (ii) partial damage,
(iii) deformity, (iv) burns, (v) maiming, (vi) disfigurement, (vii)
disability, or (viii) grievous hurt."
The first seven of the injuries referred to in the sections are
6.
classified based on the normal after effect of acid attack whereas the
eighth one is on the gravity of the effect. Under Sections 326-A and
326-B, grievous hurt is only one among the eight injuries. In view of
the Explanation under Section 326-B, the resultant damage or
deformity under Sections 326-A or 326-B is not required to be
irreversible. The other seven injuries may be either simple or
grievous. The nature of injury being simple or grievous, is irrelevant
for distinguishing between Section 323 and Section 326-A IPC or
between Section 326-A and Section 326-B IPC.
If the injury referred
to under Section 326-A or 326-B is one among the specified eight
injuries, whether the seven of them be simple or grievous, the
special provisions are attracted .
*
8. Thus, merely because the title to Section 326-A IPC speaks about
grievous hurt by use of acid, it is not a requirement under the section
that the injuries caused should be invariably grievous. Even if the
seven injuries are simple, Section 326-A, and under Section 326-B the
mere act of throwing or attempt, as indicated in the section, would
attract the offence.
9. The title to the provision need not invariably indicate the contents
of the provision. If the provision is otherwise clear and unambiguous,
the title pales into irrelevance. On the contrary, if the contents of the
provision are otherwise ambiguous, an aid can be sought from the
title so as to define the provision. In the event of a conflict between
the plain expressions in the provision and the indicated title, the title
cannot control the contents of the provision. Title is only a broad
and general indication of the nature of the subject dealt under the
.
provision

CRLA No. 3336 of 2024
6
*
15. As we have already discussed above, it is not the percentage or
gravity of injury, which makes the difference. Be it simple or
grievous, if the injury falls under the specified types under Section
326-A on account of use of acid, the offence under Section 326-A is
. Section 326-B would be attracted in case the requirements
attracted
specified are met on an attempted acid attack...."
(emphasis added)
22. Now, I proceed to examine whether the victim has suffered any - (i)
permanent damage, (ii) partial damage, (iii) deformity, (iv) burns, (v)
maiming, (vi) disfigurement or (vii) disability. There is no evidence
regarding any permanent or partial damage, deformity, maiming,
disfigurement or disability suffered by the victim.
23. The only thing which remains to be examined is whether the burns
suffered by the victim would attract Section 326-A IPC, because the word
"burns" also find place in Section 326-A IPC, but its extent is not mentioned
in the Section.
24. In : (1984) 2 SCC
A. Madan Mohan v. Kalavakunta Chandrasekhara
288, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that: -
" 13. It is a well-settled principle of interpretation of statute that
wherever a statute contains stringent provisions they must be literally
and strictly construed so as to promote the object of the Act."
25. In State of Maharashtra v. Lalit Somdatta Nagpal : (2007) 4 SCC 171,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in reference to Maharashtra Control of
Organized Crimes Act, 1999, that: -
However, we are in agreement with the submission that having
" 62.
regard to the stringent provisions of mcoca, its provisions will have to
be very strictly interpreted and the authorities concerned would have
to be bound down to the strict observance of the said provisions..."
26. Section 326-A IPC also carries a stringent punishment of imprisonment
for 10 years and it should be interpreted strictly. It is also a settled principle
of law that a statutory provision should be read as a whole and a word
cannot be read and understood divorced from the entire provision.
27. Section 326-A provides for eight types of injuries - (i) permanent
damage, (ii) partial damage, (iii) deformity, (iv) burns, (v) maiming, (vi)
disfigurement, (vii) disability, or (viii) grievous hurt. The word "burns" used
in Section 326-A should be interpreted ejusdem generis with the other seven
categories used in the provision.
28. " Noscitur a sociis " is a well-recognised principle used for interpretation

CRLA No. 3336 of 2024
7
of statutes. In The State of Bombay and Ors. vs. The Hospital Mazdoor
Sabha and Ors. : AIR 1960 SC 610, it was observed that: -
" ... This rule, according to Maxwell, means that, when two or
more words which are susceptible of analogous meaning are
coupled together they are understood to be used in their cognate
sense. They take as it were their colour from each other, that is,
the more general is restricted to a sense analogous to a less
general. The same rule is thus interpreted in "Words and
Phrases" (Vol. XIV, p. 207):
" Associated words take their meaning from one another under
the doctrine of noscuntur a sociis, the philosophy of which is that
the meaning of a doubtful word may be ascertained by reference
to the meaning of words associated with it; such doctrine is
broader than the maxim Ejusdem Generis."
In fact the latter maxim is only an illustration or specific
application of the broader maxim "noscuntur a sociis".
29. In Edakkandi Dineshan v. State of Kerala : (2025) 3 SCC 273, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: -
" ..."Noscitur a sociis" is a well-recognised principle used for
18.
interpretation of statutes. It means that the meaning of a word can be
determined by the context of the sentence; it is to be judged by the
company it keeps..."
30. The word "burns" is a vague term. A person can feel burning sensation
of various degrees. The word "burns" used under Section 326-A IPC does
not mention the extent or the gravity of the same and so it must be read
ejusdem generis with the other words used in the provision. The intention
behind the other words used in the provision - permanent damage, partial
damage, deformity, maiming, disfigurement, disability, or grievous hurt
appears to be that the injury must be severe so much so that it causes the
body part to be either altered or gravely affected for a significant period of
time. The injury must have some lasting impact on the body part injured.
The word "burns" used in the provision must also be interpreted in the same
light i.e. the nature or the severity of such burn cannot be such that it leaves
no visible marks of injuries after passing of merely 13 days after the
incident. At the least the nature of the burn must be such that has a lasting
impact on the body part which has suffered a burn. Therefore, a simple burn
which heals in 13 days is not what is envisaged by the expression "burn" as
used in the said section.
31. In paragraph 274 of the judgment in the case of Vijay Madanlal
: (2023) 12 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Supreme
Chaudhary versus Union of India
Court referred to a King's Bench judgment in the case of Seaford Court
Estates ld.
, which is as follows: -

CRLA No. 3336 of 2024
8
" We may profitably advert to the judgment in Seaford Court
274.
Estates ld. [1949] 2 K.B. 481, which states:
"… A judge, believing himself to be fettered by the supposed rule
that he must look to the language and nothing else, laments that the
draftsmen have not provided for this or that, or have been guilty of
some or other ambiguity. It would certainly save the judges trouble
if Acts of Parliament were drafted with divine prescience and perfect
clarity. In the absence of it, when a defect appears a judge cannot
simply fold his hands and blame the draftsman. He must set to work
on the constructive task of finding the intention of Parliament, and
he must do this not only from the language of the statute, but also
from a consideration of the social conditions which gave rise to it,
and of the mischief which it was passed to remedy, and then he must
supplement the written word so as to give "force and life" to the
intention of the legislature. That was clearly laid down by the
resolution of the judges in Heydon's case, (1584) 3 Co. Rep. 7a, and it
is the safest guide today. Good practical advice on the subject was
given about the same time by Plowden in his second volume Eyston v.
Studd (1574) 2 Plowden 465.
Put into homely metaphor it is this : A
judge should ask himself the question : If the makers of the Act had
themselves come across this ruck in the texture of it, how would they
have straightened it out? He must then do as they would have done.
A judge must not alter the material of which it is woven, but he can
and should iron out the creases."
(emphasis added)
32. Therefore, I hold that the word "burns" used in Section 326-A IPC,
without specifying its degree, extent or effect, should be read and understood
by reading it alongwith the other seven conditions mentioned in the Section,
i.e., (i) permanent damage, (ii) partial damage, (iii) deformity, (iv) maiming,
(v) disfigurement, (vi) disability, or (vii) grievous hurt. The word "burns"
used in Section 326-A should be interpreted ejusdem generis with the other
seven categories used in the provision.
33. The injuries suffered by the victim healed within 13 days to the extent
that they left no visible marks or functional impairment upon the victim's
body and therefore the nature of the injuries falls short of the gravity or the
seriousness of the injuries required to attract Section 326-A IPC. Therefore,
although the victim's medical report mentions that he suffered burn injuries,
those burns are not the "burns" as intended by Section 326-A IPC and,
therefore, the same would not attract the offence under Section 326-A IPC.
34. Therefore, the offence under Section 326-A IPC is not made out.
However, it is undisputed that the victim had suffered injuries in the
incident. The appellant is well known to the victim as he is his uncle's son
and resides in the same village. Therefore, there is no possibility of a
mistaken identity of the miscreant. There appears to be no reason for the
victim to save and protect the real miscreant and implicate the appellant fals

CRLA No. 3336 of 2024
9
ely.
35. Keeping in view the testimony of the victim and the complainant to the
effect that the appellant had poured acid upon the victim and had caused
burn injuries to the victim, I am of the view that the offence under Section
324 IPC is made out against the appellant, which provides as follows:
" 324. Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.—
Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily
causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or
cutting, or any instrument which, used as weapon of offence, is likely
to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by
means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any
explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is
deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into
the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
three years, or with fine, or with both."
36. There is sufficient evidence to prove that the appellant had poured some
corrosive substance on the victim and he thereby caused hurt to him.
Therefore, the appellant is liable to be convicted and sentenced for the
offence under Section 324 IPC.
37. Accordingly, the appeal is . The impugned judgment and
allowed in part
order dated 30.09.2024, passed by Sri Prabhat Kumar Yadav, the learned
VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Raebareli in Session Trial No. 100255 of
2017, arising out of Case Crime No. 86 of 2017, whereby the appellant has
been convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 326-A IPC is
modified and the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offence
under Section 326-A IPC is . Instead, the appellant is convicted for
set aside
a lesser offence under Section 324 IPC for which he is sentenced to the
maximum sentence of imprisonment for 3 years and Rs. 10,000/- as fine. It
is provided that in case of failure to pay fine, the appellant would undergo
simple imprisonment for an additional period of 3 months. The appellant has
already undergone imprisonment for a period exceeding the aforesaid period
to which he has been sentenced. Therefore, the appellant need not deposit
the amount of fine.
38. The appellant shall be set free case he is not required in connection with
any other case, upon his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the
satisfaction of the court concerned as per the requirement of 437-A Cr.P.C.,
undertaking to appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case any appeal
is filed against this order and the Hon'ble Supreme Court issues notice of the
appeal to the appellant. Such bond shall remain in force for a period of six
months from today.

CRLA No. 3336 of 2024
10
39. Before parting with the case, I put on record my gratitude for the
assistance provided by Sri Chandra Bhushan Pandey, Advocate in deciding
this matter.
October 27, 2026
Ram.
(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)
Whether the order is speaking :- Yes
Whether the order is reportable :- Yes
.
(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
RAM SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench