R. Banumathi JUDGMENT
Dipak Misra, J.
1. In Chetan Dass v. Kamla Devi MANU/SC/0262/2001 : (2001) 4 SCC 250, this Court had observed:
Matrimonial matters are matters of delicate human and emotional relationship. It demands mutual trust, regard, respect, love and affection with sufficient play for reasonable adjustments with the spouse. The relationship has to conform to the social norms as well. ...
2. Though the aforesaid observations were made in the context of a matrimonial dispute arising out of a proceeding Under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 praying for dissolution of marriage by granting a decree of divorce, yet we have commenced our judgment with the same as the facts of the present case painfully project what a relation in close proximity can do to a young girl when his proposal for his marriage is not accepted and he, forgetting the fundamental facet of human dignity and totally becoming oblivious of the fact that marriage, as a social institution, is an affirmance of civilized society order, allows his unrequited love to be converted to complete venom that leads him on the path of vengeance, and the ultimate shape of such retaliation is house trespass by the Accused carrying an acid bottle and pouring it over the head of the girl, the Appellant herein.
3. The necessary facts. On the basis of the statement of the injured, an FIR Under Sections 448 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (Indian Penal Code) was registered at police station Vallampudi. The injuries sustained by the victim-informant required long treatment and eventually after recording the statements of the witnesses, collecting various materials from the spot and taking other aspects into consideration of the crime, the investigating agency filed the charge sheet for the offences that were originally registered under the FIR before the competent court which, in turn, committed the matter to the Court of Session, Vizianagaram. The Accused abjured his guilt and expressed his desire to face the trial.
4. The prosecution, in order to establish the charges against the accused, examined 12 witnesses and got marked Ex. P1 to P14 besides bringing 11 material objects on record. The defence chose not to examine any witness. It may be noted that on behalf of the defence, one document Ex. D-1, was marked.
5. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram did not find the Accused guilty Under Section 307 Indian Penal Code but held him guilty Under Section 326 and 448 Indian Penal Code. At the time of hearing of the sentence Under Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure........