Sheru Khan vs State on 16 July, 2025

Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur

Sheru Khan vs State on 16 July, 2025

Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

[2025:RJ-JD:29620-DB]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                D.B. Criminal Jail Appeal No. 296/1997

Sheru Khan son of Shri Gulab Khan, resident of Sankarna, Police
Station Ahore, District Jalore, (presently lodged in Central Jail,
Bikaner).
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
State of Rajasthan
                                                                    ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Aman Bishnoi Bola (Amicus
                                   Curiae)
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. C.S. Ojha, PP



     HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL

Judgment

Reserved on : 08/07/2025

Pronounced on : 16/07/2025

(PER HON’BLE BENIWAL, J.)

1. The present appeal is being preferred by the accused-

appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 29.05.1997

passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore in Sessions Case

No.51/1996, whereby he was convicted for the offences under

Sections 452, 324, 326 and 302 IPC and was acquitted for the

offence under Section 307 IPC.

2. The facts in nutshell arising to the present appeal are that a

complaint was lodged by one Smt. Shayra wife of Nene Khan while

contending that on 19.05.1996, at around 09.00 A.M., she was

feeding her son Mustaq while sitting in her house outside her room

and her second son Salim, her niece Zubeda were also sitting with

(Downloaded on 17/07/2025 at 05:19:34 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29620-DB] (2 of 18) [CRLJA-296/1997]

her. At that moment, accused-appellant Sheru Khan came with

one steel canister in his hand and asked whereabouts of Nene

Khan, her husband. On this, Shayra replied that he was not at

home. On knowing this, accused-appellant opened the lid of the

steel canister and threw acid on all four persons who were sitting

there and after pouring acid on them, the accused-appellant ran

away. It is further stated that later, on raising hue and cry by the

injured persons, one Vija Ram Rebari (PW-7) came there and

thereafter Sataar Khan (PW-4) also came and all the injured

persons were taken to hospital where they were admitted. The

motive for committing the said offence was that the accused-

appellant was married to Zubeda, however later he divorced her.

Since Zubeda was taken by Shayra to her home, the accused

appellant intended to kill her and that is why he committed this

offence of throwing acid on her and other persons who were

sitting with her. On the said complaint, the investigation was

commenced and on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was

filed and later on charges were framed against the accused-

appellant for the offences under Section 307, 326 and 452 IPC,

however, one Mustaq died while under treatment and therefore

offence under Section 302 was also added.

3. The prosecution in order to establish its case produced as

many as 20 prosecution witnesses and 33 documentary evidence

were exhibited and statement of accused-appellant under Section

313 CrPC was also recorded. The learned trial court after

considering the entire evidence available on record, proceeded to

convict the present appellant by the impugned judgment.

(Downloaded on 17/07/2025 at 05:19:34 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29620-DB] (3 of 18) [CRLJA-296/1997]

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant while

challenging the impugned judgment made the following

submissions:-

(i) The complainant PW-1 Smt. Shayra, who is also an eye

witness, cannot be considered as trustworthy witness to the

incident as she had improved her version in the statement given

before the Court wherein she had stated that the incident was also

witnessed by one Guddi who was in bathroom.

(ii) The PW-3 Salim who is brother of the deceased Mustaq has

stated that he has named accused-appellant as told by PW-16

Zubeda and therefore his statement cannot be said to be a reliable

statement.

(iii) Doctor B.L. Chouhan, PW-12, has clearly stated that medical

opinion was not brought on record nor did he provide the medical

opinion. Therefore, in absence of the same, the accused-appellant

could not have been convicted.

(iv) The recovery of the steel canister was recovered from the

open place and therefore the requirement of Section 27 of the

Evidence Act was not complied with. Learned counsel for the

appellant relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

the case of Manjunath and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka [2023

INSC 978] in order to contend that recovery of weapon from open

place accessible to all is not at all a reliable recovery as required

under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

(v) The witness to the recovery of steel canister has turned

hostile and therefore prosecution failed to establish the recovery

of the steel canister in which accused brought the acid.

(Downloaded on 17/07/2025 at 05:19:34 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:29620-DB] (4 of 18) [CRLJA-296/1997]

(vi) The independent eye witness PW-7 Vija Ram has turned

hostile and has not supported the prosecution story and other

witnesses are all family members of the deceased Mustaq and,

therefore, all are interested witnesses.

(vii) There was no motive to cause any injury or to murder

Mustaq and in absence of any motive being established by the

prosecution, the accused-appellant cannot be convicted under

Section 302 of IPC.

4.1 Counsel for the accused-appellant, after making the

aforesaid submissions submitted that even if the guilt of the

appellant-accused is established yet it cannot be said to be a case

of Section 302 IPC as even as per the prosecution story, there was

no motive at the behest of the appellant-accused to kill Mustaq

and that being so, the present case would not fall under Section

302 of the IPC and should be considered as a case of culpable

homicide not amounting to murder and, therefore, the sentence is

required to be modified accordingly.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State while

justifying the impugned judgment has made the following

submissions :-

(i) the present incident occurred in day light and the said

incident has happened in presence of PW-1 Shayra, PW-3 Salim,

PW-6 Guddi and PW-16 Zubeda.

(ii) PW-1, PW-3 and PW-16 were eye witnesses as well as

injured witnesses and, therefore, their testimonies cannot be

disbelieved. All the three witnesses have categorically deposed

that on 19.05.1996, the accused-appellant came and caused

injury by acid attack. Out of the said attack, all the three above

(Downloaded on 17/07/2025 at 05:19:34 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29620-DB] (5 of 18) [CRLJA-296/1997]

referred witnesses sustained injuries including the deceased

Mustaq who succumbed to those injuries and died after one and a

half month of the incident. This clearly establishes the fact that

the accused-appellant was the person who attacked on

19.05.1996 on account of which deceased Mustaq sustained

injuries including PW-1, PW-3 and PW-16, so also the fact that he

was present at the place of incident at the relevant time.

(iii) The recovery of steel canister was though from an open

place but that was hidden in the bushes. Not only this, the name

of the accused-appellant was ambushed on the canister and

furthermore, the canister was having blackish colour inside it

which was result of putting acid in it.

(vi) The PW-12 Dr. B.L. Chouhan who had examined the injuries,

has clearly deposed that the acid injury which Mustaq sustained

on account of acid attack was the prime reason for his death.

(vii) The PW-13 Dr. Vallabh Bhandari who examined the injuries

sustained by PW-3 Salim Khan, PW-16 Zubeda and PW-1 Shayra,

has clearly deposed that all these three persons sustained injuries

on account of acid attack.

(viii) All the three eye witnesses as well as the injured witnesses

namely PW-1, 3 and 16 while giving their statements before the

Court have voluntarily shown the acid attack injuries to the Court.

(ix) The motive of causing injury by acid attack was fully

established by the prosecution as accused-appellant was earlier

married to Zubeda and, thereafter, they had a matrimonial dispute

and since Shayra brought Zubeda to her home, therefore,

appellant-accused planned to kill Zubeda as well as Shayra. In

view of the said motive, appellant-accused had attacked and had

(Downloaded on 17/07/2025 at 05:19:34 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29620-DB] (6 of 18) [CRLJA-296/1997]

thrown acid on all four persons including Shayra, Zubeda, Salim

and Mustaq. Unfortunately, Mustaq succumbed to those acid

injuries and died while being treated after about one and a half

month.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

7. In order to appreciate the evidence available in the present

case, it would be appropriate to first examine the statements of

PW-1 Shayra, PW-3 Salim and PW-16 Zubeda, who are not only

eye witnesses to the incident but also injured witnesses.

7.1. On perusal of the statement of PW-1 Shayra, who is also the

first informant, it is revealed that on 19.05.1996, she was in her

house sitting outside the room and was feeding milk to Mustaq

who was aged about 4-6 months along with her son Salim (PW-3)

and niece Zubeda (PW-16) who was the daughter of her brother,

were also sitting with her. At around 09.00 A.M, on the said day,

the accused-appellant came with one steel canister in his hand.

After asking about Nene Khan, her husband and after knowing

that he was not at home, accused-appellant opened the lid of the

canister and poured the acid on all four persons including the

deceased Mustaq. On account of such acid attack, PW-1, PW-3 and

PW-16 and one Mustaq sustained acid injuries. On hearing the hue

and cry of injured persons, PW-7 Vijaram reached the place of

incident and few moments later, PW-4 Sattar Khan also arrived.

Later, all four were taken to the hospital where they were

admitted. The deceased Mustaq succumbed to those acid injuries

and died after one and a half month.

(Downloaded on 17/07/2025 at 05:19:34 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29620-DB] (7 of 18) [CRLJA-296/1997]

7.2. PW-16 Zubeda deposed that she was married to the accused

and they had two children out of the wedlock. The statement

further reveals that the accused used to harass her and keep her

confined in a locked room. The accused had divorced PW-16

Zubeda following which she returned to her maternal home. She

further deposed that she had gone to attend a wedding ceremony

in Mithdi where she met her aunt (mami) PW-1 Shayra.

Thereafter, she went alongwith PW-1 Shayra to Jalore and stayed

there. On the date of incident, she was sitting alongwith PW-1

Shayra, PW-3 Salim and Mustaq when the accused-appellant came

and inquired about Nenu Khan (husband of PW-1 Shayra). On

knowing about his absence, he opened the steel canister and

threw the acid on all persons. Consequently, she suffered injuries

and is not able to function properly.

7.3. The third witness PW-3 Salim, also narrated the incident as

was narrated by PW-1 and PW-16, however, in his cross-

examination, it is stated that he has named the accused-appellant

as per what was told to him by Zubeda.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant has though contended that

the statement of PW-1 Shayra is not trustworthy as she is

exaggerating her version and has improved the story as to what

was earlier narrated by her in the complaint, however, this Court

is of the opinion that such exaggeration is not material and the

consistent statement as made by her in the complaint, statement

under Section 161 CrPC and the statement made before the

learned trial court coupled with the fact that she herself sustained

injuries is sufficient enough to establish the fact that she was a

(Downloaded on 17/07/2025 at 05:19:34 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29620-DB] (8 of 18) [CRLJA-296/1997]

victim and an eye witness to the incident which occured on

19.05.1996.

9. As far as the statement of PW-3 Salim is concerned, it is

contended by the counsel for the appellant that he has named the

accused-appellant on the basis of what Zubeda told him. This

Court is of the view that even if he has named the appellant-

accused on the basis of what was said by Zubeda, however, fact is

that he was present at the time of incident as he himself sustained

acid injuries which is corroborated from the injury report (Ex.

P/17) and statements of doctor PW-13 who had examined him.

There is nothing available on record to negate the fact that PW-3

was absent at the time of incident.

10. The above statements clearly show that PW-1, 3 and 16

were present at the time when the incident in question happened

which resulted in the death of Mustaq.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that one of the

witnesses Vija Ram (PW-7) who was the first person to arrive at

the place of incident has turned hostile. This Court is of the view

that even if the statement of PW-7 Vija Ram is discarded yet the

case against the accused-appellant is fully established. PW-1, 3

and 16 may be relatives of deceased Mustaq, yet their testimonies

cannot be disbelieved solely on this ground, more particularly,

when all these three witnesses have sustained acid attack injuries.

12. As far as the medical evidence is concerned, two witnesses

namely PW-12 Dr. BL Chouhan and PW-13 Dr. Vallabh Bhandari

have been examined by the prosecution. Another important

medical evidence is Exhibit P/21, i.e. the injury report of accused-

appellant.

(Downloaded on 17/07/2025 at 05:19:34 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29620-DB] (9 of 18) [CRLJA-296/1997]

12.1 PW-12 Dr. BL Chouhan in his examination-in-chief stated

about the injuries which were noted on the body of deceased

Mustaq. It is clearly opined that 70% injury on the person of

Mustaq were burn injuries and those injuries were ordinarily

sufficient enough to cause death. Even if the medical report was

not prepared yet the description of injury as noted by Dr. BL

Chouhan and also his opinion as to the cause of death was

sufficient enough to establish the fact that on account of the acid

attack made by the accused-appellant, Mustaq succumbed to

those injuries and resultantly, he died.

12.2 Dr. Vallabh Bhandari PW-13 who examined injured witnesses

Salim Khan, Zubeda and Shayra has also given details of their

injuries in the respective injury reports (Ex.P/17, Ex.P/19 and

Ex.P/20) which were noted when all these three injured witnesses

were examined which clearly shows that these three persons

sustained injuries on account of acid attack.

12.3 The Exhibit P/21 which is the injury report of the accused-

appellant also indicates that while he attacked on Mustaq and

other persons, he himself sustained injury on account of acid

attack.

12.4 The depositions of the two Doctors i.e. PW-12 and 13, the

injury reports of injured witnesses i.e. Exhibits-P/17, 19, and 20

and injury report of accused i.e. Exhibit P/21 clearly establish the

fact that on 19.05.1996, the accused-appellant attacked by using

acid upon Mustaq and other injured persons which ultimately

resulted in death of deceased Mustaq.

13. Coming on to the mode/method used for carrying out the

offence in question, it is noted that the act of throwing acid was

(Downloaded on 17/07/2025 at 05:19:34 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29620-DB] (10 of 18) [CRLJA-296/1997]

committed using a steel canister which was recovered during

investigation by the police upon furnishing information by the

accused-appellant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act (Ex.P/28).

So far as the recovery of the steel canister is concerned, it is

noted that the witness to the recovery proceeding namely PW-8

Narayan Lal did not turn hostile and stated in his examination-in-

chief that the canister was found in the bushes. He stated in his

cross-examination that he saw the police pulling out the canister

from a ditch which was covered by mud.

13.1 There are two important facts which require consideration,

firstly, the canister recovered was bearing name of the accused-

appellant and secondly, the inside surface of the canister was

found to be black on account of storing acid in it.

13.2 There is another aspect which is to be seen in the present

case is that the canister is not the weapon used in the present

incident but was only a container. As a matter of fact, it was an

acid attack and it is the acid which has caused injury to the

injured witnesses namely PW-1, 3 and 16 and the deceased

Mustaq. It is further noted that the canister was recovered from

the bushes and pulled out from a ditch covered with mud,

therefore, it cannot be said that it was a completely open place

visible to every person.

13.3 Moreover, the police has also seized the clothes of the

victims vide Ex.P/7 to Ex.P/10 so also the accused-appellant vide

Ex.P/26. The steel canister (Article-8) as well as the clothes of the

victims and accused-appellant (Articles-3 to 7) were sent for

forensic examination. The FSL report (Ex.P/33) clearly shows the

presence of acid. It was opined as under:-

(Downloaded on 17/07/2025 at 05:19:34 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:29620-DB] (11 of 18) [CRLJA-296/1997]

“On micro-chemical analysis:-

The distilled water extracts of the clothe cuttings contained in
each of the packet marked A-3; A-4; A-5; A-6 and A-7 gave
positive tests for the presence of sulphuric acid.

The distilled water extract of the container contained in the packet
marked A-8 gave positive test for the presence of sulphuric acid.”

13.4 Thus, the prosecution has been successful in establishing the

fact that the victims so also the accused-appellant were present at

the place of incident and the acid was used as weapon.

14. The counsel for the appellant has also argued that since

there was no motive of killing Mustaq, therefore, the appellant

cannot be held guilty for the offence under Section 302 IPC. On

the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the

accused in broad day light committed the offence with

premeditated intention to kill the injured as well as deceased

Mustaq.

15. Before adjudicating upon the conviction under Section 302

IPC, a perusal of the provisions contained in Section 300 IPC is

necessary. The relevant part of the said section reads as under:-

“300. Murder.–Except in the cases hereinafter
excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by
which the death is caused is done with the intention of
causing death, or–

2ndly.–If it is done with the intention of causing such
bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause
the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or
3rdly.–If it is done with the intention of causing bodily
injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to
be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of
nature to cause death, or–

4thly.–If the person committing the act knows that it is
so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability,
cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause
death, and commits such act without any excuse for

(Downloaded on 17/07/2025 at 05:19:34 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29620-DB] (12 of 18) [CRLJA-296/1997]

incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as
aforesaid.”

15.1 A perusal of this section reflects that in the third limb, that

is, clause (c) of Section 300 IPC, culpable homicide is classified as

murder if the act by which death is caused is done with the

intention of causing bodily injury to any person, and the bodily

injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of

nature to cause death. In the opinion of this Court, the act of the

accused clearly falls within the ambit of Section 300 IPC clause

(c). The evidence on record demonstrates that the accused

intentionally inflicted severe bodily injuries upon the deceased

child by deliberately throwing acid on all persons present, fully

aware of the child’s presence in his mother’s lap.

15.2 The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Virsa Singh v. State

of Punjab (1958 SCR 1495) observed as under:

“The prosecution must prove the following facts before it can bring a
case under s. 300, 3rdly: First, it must establish, quite objectively, that a
bodily injury is present; Secondly, the nature of the injury must be
proved; these are purely objective investigations. Thirdly, it must be
proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular bodily injury,
that is to say, that it was not accidental or unintentional, or that some
other kind of injury was intended. Once these three elements are proved
to be present, the enquiry proceeds further and, Fourthly, it must be
proved that the injury of the type just described made up of the three
elements set out above is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course
of nature. This part of the enquiry is purely objective and inferential and
has nothing to do with the intention of the offender. Once these four
elements are established by the prosecution (and, of course, the burden
is on the prosecution throughout) the offence is murder under s. 300,
3rdly. It does not matter that there was no intention to cause death. It
does not matter that there was no intention even to cause an injury of a
kind that is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature (not
that there is any real distinction between the two). It does not even
matter that there is no knowledge that an act of that kind will be likely to
cause death. Once the intention to cause the bodily injury actually found
to be present is proved, the rest of the enquiry is purely objective and the
only question is whether, as a matter of purely objective inference, the
injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.”

(Downloaded on 17/07/2025 at 05:19:34 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:29620-DB] (13 of 18) [CRLJA-296/1997]

15.3 This Court is of the view that the legal test laid down by the

Hon’ble Apex Court in Virsa Singh (supra) provides the settled

framework for examining whether a culpable homicide falls within

clause (c) of Section 300 IPC. The Hon’ble Supreme Court

observed that “the prosecution must prove the following facts

before it can bring a case under s. 300, 3rdly:

15.3.1. First, it must establish, quite objectively, that a bodily

injury is present; Secondly, the nature of the injury must be

proved; these are purely objective investigations. Thirdly, it must

be proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular

bodily injury, that is to say, that it was not accidental or

unintentional, or that some other kind of injury was intended.

15.3.2. Once these three elements are proved to be present, the

enquiry proceeds further and, Fourthly, it must be proved that the

injury of the type just described made up of the three elements

set out above is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of

nature.

15.4 These ingredients, as laid down, create a clear and

structured approach to applying clause (c) of Section 300 IPC. The

first two elements require purely objective proof: there must be

evidence establishing that a bodily injury was actually present on

the victim, and the precise nature, location, and extent of that

injury must be proved, typically through medical testimony. The

third element introduces a subjective component: it must be

shown that the accused intended to inflict that very bodily injury

which is found on the deceased, excluding any possibility of

accident or mistake. This means the prosecution must prove that

(Downloaded on 17/07/2025 at 05:19:34 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29620-DB] (14 of 18) [CRLJA-296/1997]

the injury was not unintended or of a different kind than what was

actually caused.

15.5 This Court further notes that the fourth element, as

explained by the Hon’ble Apex Court, is again an objective and

inferential enquiry. It requires the court to determine whether the

injury so intended and inflicted is, by its very nature, sufficient in

the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The Supreme Court

clarified that this part of the enquiry has nothing to do with the

offender’s knowledge or intention regarding the consequence of

death. Once it is established that the accused intended to cause

the particular injury, the only remaining question is whether, on a

fair and objective medical or forensic assessment, that injury is

sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. If these

four elements are proved, the law treats the offence as murder

under Section 300, clause (c), even if the accused had no

intention to kill or knowledge that death would result.

16. This Court finds that, applying the test laid down by the

Hon’ble Apex Court in Virsa Singh (supra), the act of the accused

in the present case clearly falls within clause (c) of Section 300

IPC. The first requirement under the test is that there must be a

bodily injury present and proved. The evidence on record

unequivocally establishes that the deceased Mushtaq, an infant of

six months, suffered 70% burn injuries as a direct result of acid

being thrown on him. P.W.12 Dr. B.L. Chauhan, who conducted the

post-mortem, has categorically stated that such injuries were

present, and PMR (Ex.P/16) confirms that more than half of those

injuries had not healed at the time of death. This establishes

(Downloaded on 17/07/2025 at 05:19:34 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29620-DB] (15 of 18) [CRLJA-296/1997]

objectively that there was a severe, identifiable bodily injury

inflicted on the deceased.

16.1 Secondly, the nature of the injury has been clearly proved on

the record through reliable medical evidence. P.W.12 Dr. Chauhan

has opined that the injuries were extensive, covering 70% of the

child’s body, and were of such nature as to be sufficient in the

ordinary course of nature to cause death. The doctor further

confirmed that the actual cause of death was syncope and shock

resulting directly from these burn injuries. Additionally, P.W.13 Dr.

Vallabh Bhandari, who prepared the injury report (Ex.P.18) at the

time of Mushtaq’s admission, deposed that such injuries could lead

to death. This medical testimony precisely establishes both the

nature and gravity of the injury in objective terms, leaving no

ambiguity about its lethal character.

16.2 Thirdly, it is evident that there was an intention on the part

of the accused to inflict that particular bodily injury, and fourthly,

the injury so inflicted was sufficient in the ordinary course of

nature to cause death. The facts show that the accused entered

the complainant’s house carrying a steel canister filled with acid,

enquired about the husband’s presence, and upon learning he was

absent, deliberately opened the canister and threw acid on all four

persons present, including the infant Mushtaq who was being fed

in his mother’s lap. This act was neither accidental nor

indiscriminate in a legally excusing sense; rather, it was a

deliberate, targeted assault designed to injure everyone present,

including the child whose presence was manifest. Once the

intention to cause that particular bodily injury is established, the

(Downloaded on 17/07/2025 at 05:19:34 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29620-DB] (16 of 18) [CRLJA-296/1997]

remaining enquiry is purely objective and inferential. In this case,

the expert medical testimony confirms that the injuries were

sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

Accordingly, this Court finds that all four ingredients of the Virsa

Singh test are fully satisfied, and the act of the accused amounts

to murder under Section 300 IPC, clause (c), punishable under

Section 302 IPC.

17. The Hon’ble Apex Court with respect to acid attacks medical

jurisprudence in the case of Sudershan Kumar vs. State of

Delhi (AIR 1974 SC 2328) observed as under:

“9. In the present case, it is established beyond all reasonable
doubt that the accused intended to cause injuries by throwing acid
and injuries were caused on the person of Maya Devi. Dr. V. K.
Jain, who treated Maya Devi in the City Clinic has stated in his
evidence that the injuries suffered by Maya Devi were sufficient
collectively,. in the ordinary course of nature, to cause death. The
opinion of Dr. Jain is corroborated by the evidence of Dr. K. S. Raj
Kumar. He said that the burns were to the extent of 35 per cent of
the body, that if the bum exceeded 30 per cent, the same would be
dangerous to life and that the injuries on Maya Devi were
dangerous to life. Dr. S. S. Kaushal who conducted the postmortem
examination was of the view that death was due to toxaemia and
septi-semia from actions of toxine on account of the extensive
superficial ulceration of the body caused by some corrosive
material. The evidence of these doctors would show that the
injuries caused to Maya Devi were of a dangerous character. The
fact that Maya Devi lingered for about 12 days would not show that
the death was not the direct result of the act of the appellant in
throwing acid on her. The medical evidence is clear that 35 per cent
of the surface of the body of Maya Devi was burnt as a result of the
injuries received by her.

The involvement of one-third to one-half of the superficial surface
of the body is likely to end fatally”. (see Modi’s Medical
Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 17th ed., p.196).

In Suppurative cases, death may occur after five or six weeks or
even longer(ibid, p. 198).

Taylor says that after the fourth day of the injury, “the chief danger
to life is the occurrence of sepsis in the burned areas”

(Downloaded on 17/07/2025 at 05:19:34 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:29620-DB] (17 of 18) [CRLJA-296/1997]

18. This Court notes that in the present case the deceased child

Mushtaq suffered 70% burn injuries as established by the post-

mortem report (Ex.P/16) and the testimony of P.W.12 Dr. B.L.

Chauhan, who further opined that such injuries were sufficient in

the ordinary course of nature to cause death, making it clear that

the burns in this case far exceed the fatal threshold recognised in

medical jurisprudence and confirm the lethal nature of the acid

attack beyond any doubt.

19. This Court further notes that P.W.13, the medical officer who

prepared the injury report (Ex.P.19) of P.W.16 Zubeda, has stated

that Zubeda sustained an injury to her eye resulting in corneal

damage. In her testimony, Zubeda (P.W.16) has deposed that as a

consequence of the acid attack, she lost her eyesight. The nature

of the injury, affecting a vital organ, establishes the grievous and

permanent damage inflicted upon her. P.W.13 has also testified

that P.W.1 Sharya and P.W.3 Salim sustained injuries due to the

same acid attack. This consistent medical and ocular evidence

supports the prosecution’s case that the accused, by throwing acid

on the complainant and her family members, caused grievous and

disfiguring injuries to multiple victims. The injury to Zubeda’s eye

in particular constitutes grievous hurt, and reflects the deliberate

and destructive nature of the accused’s act.

20. In view of the foregoing discussion and the evidence on

record, this Court finds that the learned Trial Court was fully

justified in convicting the accused-appellant for the offences under

Sections 452, 324, and 326 of the Indian Penal Code. The

prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused

(Downloaded on 17/07/2025 at 05:19:34 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29620-DB] (18 of 18) [CRLJA-296/1997]

committed the said offences. No ground has been made out for

interference with the findings made by the Trial Court.

Consequently, the appeal is found to be devoid of merit and is

hereby dismissed.

21. All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(SUNIL BENIWAL), J. (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

skm/-

(Downloaded on 17/07/2025 at 05:19:34 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)