Delhi court upholds six-month jail term of man for causing eye injury with firecracker on Diwali

A man was ordered to be taken into custody and serve his full six-month jail term after a Delhi court upheld his punishment for negligently lighting a firecracker on Diwali and causing damage to a person's eye [Naveen Kumar v. State.].Additional Sessions Judge Pooran Chand was hearing an appeal against an order of the trial court handing out a six-month jail term to a man who was stated to have lighted a rocket in a “negligent manner” and then “kicked the bottle” due to which it hit the complainant’s eye, causing a permanent loss to his eyesight..The trial court had convicted him for offences under Sections 286 (negligent conduct with respect to an explosive substance) and 338 (causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others) of the Indian Penal Code..The alleged incident had taken place at around 9 pm on November 3, 2013 when the complainant was outside his house and a rocket hit his right eye.Initially, the complainant was stated to have not realised that it was a serious injury and thus he did not file a complaint. When the injury aggravated, he filed the complaint on November 9, 2013..A First Information Report (FIR) was registered and the accused was arrested and charge-sheeted. The trial court charged him on October 8, 2015. .The appeal was argued on the ground that the police failed to produce the site plan of the spot where the alleged incident took place while pointing out “contradictions” in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses over the distance between the place of incident and the place where crackers were burst..It was further submitted that the trial court had convicted the accused based on conjectures and surmises without following the principle of natural justice.On the other hand, the public prosecutor stated that the trial court's judgment required no interference. He said the complainant’s testimony was “reliable, trustworthy and unimpeachable”..“The grounds/contradictions raised in the present appeal have been correctly dealt with by Trial Court and requires no interference,” observed the Court.It also noted the “settled proposition of law” required the defence to stand on its legs and not take advantage of the “lacunaes of the prosecution story”..The order, thus, stated,“I am of the considered opinion that the Trial Court has committed no error whatsoever in holding the appellant guilty of committing the offences and awarding the sentence to the appellant. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and order on sentence which would warrant interference by this court to set it aside. Resultantly, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed…”"Appellant is taken into custody and sent to jail to serve the sentence," it added.Advocate SL Sharma represented the accused whereas Additional Public Prosecutor Alok Saxena appeared for the State..[Read Order]