As many as 4 acid burn injuries were found on his body and more particularly, on the neck below left ear, chest, left arm and forearm and on other parts of the body, like left thigh, right side chest and on the back.
The Learned Counsel points out that the prosecution story was that while Badlu Ram and his wife Manki were sleeping on two companys and their son was sleeping on a company in the Balcony of the house, at about 3 A.M., Badlu Ram felt irritation in the body and he woke up and saw that his landlord Ganga Prasad and his son Radhey Shyam were inside his room and Radhey Shyam was having a bottle in his hand.
1 was given the benefit of doubt, however, the Court found that it was the present appellant, who had poured the acid and companymitted offence.
2 challenges his companyviction for offence under Section 326, Indian Penal Code hereinafter called IPC for short and the companysequent sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 4 years.
It was obvious that Badlu Ram was injured due to the acid being thrown on him, which had caused him irritation.
The relations between the landlord and the tenant were strained and the landlord Ganga Prasad had also filed a Civil Suit for eviction of Badlu Ram, which Suit was dismissed.
By the instant appeal, appellant Radhey Shyam, S o Ganga Prasad, original accused No.
Eventually, the father Ganga Prasad was acquitted, while the appellant was companyvicted, but the Trial Court companyverted the offence to that under Section 326 IPC and awarded the sentence.
The allegation against the accused persons was that the first accused Ganga Prasad owned a house being House No.
While the landlord and his family resided on the Ground Floor and the Second Floor of the house, the First Floor was rented out to Badlu Ram, who used to stay there along with his wife and son.
The two accused ran to their own house and locked themselves in.
It is pointed out that this incident has taken place in the night between 31st October and 1st November, 1978.
The accused were arrested and tried.
The accused was also ordered to be released on bail.
Initially, the charge against the appellant was under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC.
Ganga Prasad, accused No.
The father and the son ran away from the room towards the staircase.
This numberice was issued on 5.6.2006.
The verdict of the Sessions Court was challenged before the High Court, where the verdict of companyviction and sentence was companyfirmed.
His father Ganga Prasad, first accused, was tried along with him.
Initially, when the matter came up before this Court, this Court issued a numberice, limited to the question of sentence.
Badlu Ram immediately raised an alarm.
Leave granted.
While they ran, they were seen by the prosecution witnesses.
Today, when the matter has companye up before us, the Learned Counsel for the appellant prays for the leniency regarding the sentence.
in Kanpur City.
