Bench:
- Mathew
- Kuttyil Kurien
- Untwalia N. L
Issue:
The accused poured acid on Maya Devi, her mother and her son because she refused to marry him.
Facts:
• Maya Devi was 19 years old at the time of her death and was the daughter of Raj Kumari (P.W.1). Both the mother and daughter had taken the profession of dancing and lived in an Apartment in Delhi.
• The accused had illicit connection with Maya Devi and he often visited the residence of the deceased. The accused wanted to marry Maya Devi but she declined, as he was always to another woman.
• A few days before the occurrence, the appellant took Maya Devi to his residence where she lived for about 12 days. Thereafter, she was brought back to her mother’s apartment. On that occasion as well the accused asked Maya Devi to marry him, but she refused.
• The accused then threatened Maya Devi that if she does not marry him, she should either leave Delhi or he would kill her in such a manner that she would have a lingering death.
• On August 14, 1967, at about 6AM, Maya Devi was lying in her cot with her son aged about a month. Raj Kumari was lying on another cot in the same room. The accused came to the room holding a jug containing acid and a bottle.The accused then poured the acid out of the jug on Maya Devi, her son and Raj Kumari. They started crying and the accused threw the jug on the cot and placed the bottle on the ground and ran away.
• Maya Devi was thereafter moved to the City Clinic, a private hospital at around 6:30AM. Raj Kumari and Maya Devi’s son were also moved to the hospital. The Dr. Jain there found that Maya Devi had extensive injuries on her perlion. The doctor also found that there were a few streaks and patches of acid on the right arm and forehead of Raj Kumari and acid burns were found on the scalp of Maya Devi’s son as well.
• After getting first aid from the City Clinic, Raj Kumari went to police station and lodged the FIR at 8:30AM and found Maya Devi lying in a precarious condition. She was not in a position to give any statement.
• On August 16th, 1967, the assistant Sub-Inspector went to the clinic and with the permission of the doctor, recorded the statement of Maya Devi wherein she stated that it was the accused who had thrown acid on her, her mother and her son on 14th morning.
• Post August 16th, Maya Devi started having toxaemia and infections of the burns. She was therefore transferred to the Special Burns Unit in Safdarjang Hospital on August 21st,, 1967. Dr K S Raj Kumar and Dr Nirmala Lakshmi Narain treated her in that hospital.
• On August 23rd, 1967 the Sub-divisional Magistrate went to the Hospital to record Maya Devi’s statement, she stated the same facts she had earlier. On August 26th, 1967 Maya Devi died in Safdarjang Hospital. Post-mortem was done by Dr, S.S Kaushal and then the body was sent to mortuary.
l The accused, in his statement under Section 342, CrPC said that be never wanted to marry Maya Devi, that she was living with him as his wife without any formal marriage, that he never threatened Maya Devi that in case she did not marry him he would kill her and that he did not go to the house of Maya Devi on the morning of August 14, 1967 with a jug and bottle of acid.
• The Sessions Judge accepted the prosecution case and convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. The order was confirmed by the High Court as well. The accused further appealed in the Supreme Court.
Appellant's Contentions:
• He did not intend to kill Maya Devi, but intended only to disfigure here, and, therefore, the offence would fall either under Section.304 Part I or under Section 326 of IPC. The offence of murder is defined under Section 300 of the IPC.
• According to clause 3 of that section, culpable homicide is murder if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intentions 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.
• Death of Maya Devi was not the direct result of the injuries caused by the said burns but was on account of some supervening circumstances not resulting for the injuries and therefore, the appellant could not be held guilty of murder.
• He relied on the evidence of Dr. Nirmala Lakshmi who had stated, on her cross-examination, that the cause of death of Maya Devi was malaena and respiratory failure.
Judgment:
The Court carefully examined all the evidences and heard the testimonies of all the witnesses and then came to he conclusion. The Court held that, the act of appellant in poring acid on the body was preplanned and he intended to cause the injury which he actually did. The injuries caused by the appellant were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The appellant was declared guilty of the offence punishable under Section.302 of the IPC. The conviction and sentence was confirmed and the appeal was dismissed.
Relevant Paragraph:
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 septicaemia from actions of toxin 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.
Malaena, according to Dr. Jain is nothing but passing of old blood in the stools. The evidence of Dr.S.S. Kaushal who performed the post-mortem examination of the dead body is definite. He says;"Death, in my opinion, was due to toxaemia and septicemia from absorption of toxins from extensive superficial ulceration of the body caused by some corrosive material." As already stated, the evidence of Dr. Jain and Dr. Raj Kumar is also to the effect that the injuries caused on Maya Devi were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The fact that Maya Devi developed symptoms of malaena and respiratory failure and they also contributed to her death cannot in any way affect our conclusion that the injuries caused by the acid bums were the direct cause of her death.
Nor is there any substance in the argument that Maya Devi was not given proper treatment and that her death was due to negligence of the doctors who treated her. The evidence shows that immediately after she received the injuries, she was taken to the City clinic and there Dr. Jain treated her. As her condition did not improve, she was removed to the Burns Unit of Safdarjang Hospital. There is no evidence that it was because she did not receive proper treatment that the developed toxaemia and septicaemia. The argument of counsel that the accused only intended to disfigure Maya Devi and not to cause her death overlooks the evidence of Raj Kumari that the appellant threatened Maya Devi that if she did not marry him, she will have a lingering death and also the evidence furnished- by the dying declaration of Maya Devi that the appellant threatened to kill or disfigure her with acid.
