THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. VIJAY KUMAR ALIAS PAPPU

NON­REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 753 OF 2010 STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ANR. ….Appellant(s) VERSUS VIJAY KUMAR ALIAS PAPPU AND ANR. ...Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T Rastogi, J. 1.      The challenge in this appeal is against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla th dated   24   March,   2008   filed   at   the   instance   of   the   State   of Himachal   Pradesh   whereby   the   High   Court   was   pleased   to partially allow the appeal filed by the respondents and altered the nature of  offence  from one under Section 307/34 IPC to one under Section 326 IPC and reduced the sentence of 10 years Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH Date: 2019.03.15 17:56:06 IST Reason: rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/­ each to 5 years rigorous imprisonment and increased the fine to Rs. 25,000/­ 1 each   and   in   default,   to   undergo   further   imprisonment   of   six months. 2. In the instant case, the victim has suffered 16% burn injury which was caused due to acid attack on the darkest day of her th life, i.e. on 12  July, 2004.  To unfold the prosecution version in th nutshell   that,   on   12   July,   2004   at   about   9.00   a.m.   PW­13 Shami Verma resident of Mashobra, who was present at BCS at Khalini­Dhalli   By­Pass   saw   PW­5   Kumari   Ishita(victim)   crying with burn injuries, who had jumped into the water tank nearby. PW­13 Shami Verma took out PW­5 Kumari Ishita­victim from the tank and informed to the Police Post, New Shimla, that a girl with   burn   injuries   was   present   near   her   residence   and   this information(Exhibit   PR)   was   recorded   by   the   Incharge   of   the Police Post, New Shimla, who deputed a police officer on wireless set to go to the site.  PW­36 Shakuntla Sharma went to the site and shifted the victim to the hospital and recorded her statement on   which   a   case   was   registered.     During   investigation,   PW­5 Kumari Ishita(victim) stated that when she was going to college, two boys came on a scooter and threw some acid over her from a 2 jug and run away from the spot.  After investigation, challan was filed against both the accused respondents who were tried by the learned trial Court leading to their conviction which convicted them for offence under Section 307/34 IPC and sentenced them to   undergo   rigorous   imprisonment   of   10   years   with   a   fine   of th Rs. 5,000/­ each by judgment dated 30  November, 2005 which came to be challenged by them in appeal before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh.   3. Taking note of the chemical burns caused by sulphuric acid of around 16%, which is evident from the report of Dr. Piyush Kapila(PW­2), Department of Forensic Medicine, the High Court arrived at the conclusion that the offence under Section 307/34 IPC was not made out and converted the offence from Section 307/34 IPC to Section 326 IPC and sentenced them for a period of 5 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 25,000/­ each th vide impugned judgment dated 24  March, 2008. 4. The accused respondents have accepted the conviction and have   undergone   their   sentence   in   terms   of   the   judgment th impugned dated 24   March, 2008 and have deposited the fine amount of      Rs. 25,000/­ each as informed to this Court and 3 th were released on 9   December, 2008 after undergoing sentence in terms of the impugned judgment. 5. The main thrust of the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that it was a case of acid attack on innocent young   victim   of   19   years   and   learned   trial   Court   has   rightly convicted the accused respondents under Section 307/34 IPC and sentenced them to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and there was no reasonable and cogent justification for the High Court to interfere with the impugned judgment of the learned trial Court th dated 30  November, 2005 and once they had been held guilty, their  alteration  of   punishment  is   uncalled   for   and   prayed   for restoring the conviction and sentence held by the learned trial th Court   dated   30   November,   2005.   Learned   counsel   further submitted   that   if   this   Court   is   not   inclined   to   restore   the conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court dated th 30   November,   2005,   at   least   the   victim   is   entitled   for compensation admissible under the law. 6. Learned   counsel   for   the   respondents   has   supported   the th judgment   of   the   High   Court   dated   24   March,   2008   and 4 submitted that the respondents were young at the given point of th time on the date of incident dated 12   July, 2004 and looking into the chemical burns of 16% which the victim had suffered, by no stretch of imagination, it could be considered to be a case of Section 307 IPC of committing an attempt to murder.  Further, in the given facts and circumstances, it was not even a case of Section 326 IPC but they have accepted the wrong which had been committed by them and after undergoing sentence in terms th of the impugned judgment, both were released on 9  December, 2008 and there is no justification to restore the conviction and th sentence awarded by the learned trial Court dated 30  November, 2005.   In support of his submission, reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in  Sachin Jana and Another Vs. State   2008(3) SCC 390 and submitted that it was a of West Bengal case   where   the   victims   suffered   more   than   50%   burn   injury caused due to acid and the conviction was under Section 307 IPC and yet this Court had reduced the sentence to 5 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 25,000/­.  7. In   this   background,   the   question   for   consideration   is whether   the   imposition   of   sentence   by   the   High   Court   is 5 proportionate to the crime in question and whether the victim is entitled   for   any   compensation   in   addition   to   what   has   been awarded under the impugned judgment.   8. Learned   counsel   for   the   appellants   submits   that   by   no stretch of imagination, the period undergone, can be regarded as appropriate for the offence under Section 326 IPC and definitely not when there is acid attack.  She submitted that there may not be any misplaced sympathy and exhibition of unwarranted mercy to pave the path of injustice to the victim. 9. Learned   counsel   for   the   respondents   submitted   that   the th incident has happened long back on 12  July, 2004 and by this time, the victim as well as the respondents have been living their individual lives and respondents have undergone the sentence th passed   and   were   released   on   9   December,   2008.     They   are leading a reformed life and after a long lapse of time, to send them to custody would tantamount to a gross injustice to them. 10. The two­Judge Bench of this Court in   Sachin Jana and another’s case (supra) where the accused persons faced trial for offence under Sections 148, 323, 324 and 307 read with Section 149 IPC on account of 50% burn injury which was caused due to 6 acid attack were convicted by the High Court for offence under Section 307/34 IPC but their custodial sentence was reduced to 5 years and a fine of Rs. 25,000/­.   The relevant extract is as under:­ “9.  It is to be noted that three persons suffered injuries on account of acid poured on them. The doctor had indicated   that   each   of   the   injured   persons   suffered more than 50% burn injury which was caused due to acid and the same was sufficient to cause death if not attended by medical aid at appropriate time. 12.  When the evidence on record is analysed, it is clear that Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC has clear application. The acid burns caused disfigurement.   Considering the nature of dispute the custodial 13. sentence is reduced to 5 years. However, each of the appellants is directed to pay a fine of Rs 25,000. If the amount is deposited by the appellants within six weeks from today, out of each deposit, Rs 10,000 shall be paid to each of the victims PWs 1, 2 and 3; in case the amount of fine imposed is not deposited, the default custodial sentence of one year each.” 11. The matter in reference to the victim suffered due to acid attack   was   further   considered   by   a   two­Judge   Bench   of   this Court in  Ravada Sasikala Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and   2017(4) SCC 546 where learned trial Court convicted Another the   accused   person   under   Section   326   and   448   IPC   and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and directed to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/­.   The High Court while 7 confirming the conviction under Section 326 IPC released the accused to the period which he had already undergone of 30 days which came to be interfered by this Court and the punishment and sentence of one year under Section 326 IPC was restored. But while  doing  so,  this   Court also  ousted  the  compensation which   the   victim   may   be   entitled   for   under   Section   357   and Section   357­A   of   the   Code   of   Criminal   Procedure, 1973(hereinafter being referred to as “CrPC”). 12. Indeed, it cannot be ruled out that in the present case the victim had suffered an uncivilised and heartless crime committed by the respondents and there is no room for leniency which can be conceived.  A crime of this nature does not deserve any kind of clemency.   This Court cannot be oblivious of the situation that the   victim   must   have   suffered   an   emotional   distress   which cannot be compensated either by sentencing the accused or by grant of any compensation.   13. 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 5 years at least needs no interference but at the 8 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. 14. In   Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad   Vs.   State of Maharashtra 2013(6) SCC 770, a two­Judge Bench of this Court referred to the th amended   provision,   154   Law   Commission   Report   that   has devoted entire chapter of victimology, wherein the emphasis was on the victim. 15. In  Laxmi Vs. Union of India and Others  2014(4) SCC 427, this Court observed that Section 357­A came to be inserted in the st Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by Act 5 of 2009 w.e.f. 31 December, 2009 which, inter alia, provides for preparation of a scheme for providing funds for the purpose of compensation to the victim or his dependents who have suffered loss or injury as a result of the crime and who require rehabilitation.   This Court further   directed   that   acid   attack   victims   shall   be   paid compensation   of   at   least   Rs.   3   lakhs   by   the   State Government/Union   Territory   concerned   as   the   aftercare   and rehabilitation cost. 9 16. In  State of M.P. Vs. Mehtaab  2015(5) SCC 197, this Court directed the compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs noticing the fact that occurrence   took   place   in   1997   and   it   observed   that   the   said compensation was not adequate and accordingly, in addition to the said compensation to be paid by the accused, held that the State was also required to pay compensation under Section 357­ A CrPC and reliance was placed on the decision in  Suresh  Vs.  2015(3) SCC 227.   State of Haryana 17. Victim Compensation Scheme has been considered by this Court in   2015(11) SCC 584 and this State of H.P. Vs. Rampal Court opined that compensation of Rs. 40,000/­ was inadequate taking note of the fact that the life of young child aged 20 years was lost and taking note of the precedents observed that in the interest of justice, the accused is required to pay a sum of Rs. 1 lakh and the State to pay a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs as compensation. 18. Taking note of the precedents of which reference has been made,   we   consider   it   appropriate   to   observe   that   both   the accused shall pay the additional compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/­ (Rupees One Lakh and Fifty Thousand) each and the State of Himachal   Pradesh   shall   pay   the   compensation   as   admissible 10 under the Victim Compensation Scheme as in vogue to the acid victim   (Ishita   Sandhu,   D/o   Late   Shri   Rikhi   Ram   Sandhu) (Appellant No. 2).     If the accused does not pay the additional compensation amount of Rs. 1,50,000/­ (Rupees One Lakh and Fifty Thousand) each within six months, the defaulting accused shall suffer rigorous imprisonment of six months.  The State shall deposit   the   compensation   before   the   trial   Court   within   three months   from   today   and   the   learned   trial   Court,   after   proper identification of the victim, disburse at the earliest. 19. The impugned judgment of the High Court stands modified and the appeal is accordingly disposed of. 20. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. …………………………..J. (A.M. KHANWILKAR) .………………………….J. (AJAY RASTOGI) NEW DELHI March 15, 2019 11