<.-; APPELLANT: CCn Jail) HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS^RH. BILASPUR Criminol Appeal No. 990 of 2002 Bunty ©Jeewan La! Sahu, S/o Keju lai Sahu, aged 20 yrs,, R/o Paras Nagar, Deyendra Nagar, Raipur, Distt. Raipur RESPONDENT: Versus The State of Chhattisgarh (Criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973} Present: Mr, Rajkumar Pali, counsel for the appeliant. Miss Sangeeta Mishra, Pane! Lawyer for the State/respondent. Sinole Bench: Hon'ble Mr, T.P. Sharma< J OR^L JUb&MENT (10-2-2009) 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction & order of sentence dated 9-9-2002 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Roipur in Sessions Trial No.211/2002, whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge after holding the accused/appellant guiity for commission of offen'ce under Section 326 of the I.P.C., sentenced him to undergo R.I. for fiye years & pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RJ, for six months. 2. Judgtnent of conviction is challenged on the ground that without any reiiable and clinching evidence the Court below has convicted & sentenced the appeilant and thereby committed iilegality. 3. Case of the pr-osecution, in brief, is that on 6-4-2002 injured Nohctr who used to se!! eggs was cooking eggs in his mobile shop (Thelo), at about 7 p.m. the accused came near the shop of injured Nohar, the accused was holding some liquid in a ghss and he poured the said liquid on shoulder-, neck, chest & hands of Nohar LaJ Sahu (PW-11) as a result of which Nohar- sustdned burn injuries. The said iiquid was acid. Nohar also received burn '% c injuries over his ear & eye. He lodged the F*I*R< immedjateiy vide Ex.P-3* He was sent for medical examination and medica! treatment, He was examined by Dr. Y.C. Mishra (PW-7) who found chemical burn injuries over forehead, eyes, cheeks, ear, chin, neck, shoulder, chest, abdomen & hands vide Ex.P-7< He was admitted for treatment. Spot map was prepared by the Patwari vide ExP-1. One steel glass was recovered from Dulara Bai vide Ex.P-2. Burnt cbthes wer^ selzed from the injured vide Ex<P-4. Spot map was prepared by the Investigating Officer vide Ex.P-11. Burnt clothes, glass and cash box containing some drops of liquid were sent for chemical Qnalysis vide Ex?-al4. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. 4. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was fited before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, who in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Raipur, from where learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, received the case on transfer for trial, 5. In order to establish the guilt of the appeiiant, the prosecution has examined as many as twelve witnesses. Stotement of the accused/ appeiiantwas recorded under Section 313 of the CrP.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him/pieaded innocence and false impIicGtion, 6. After affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge has convicted & sentenced the appellant in the aforesaid monner, 7. I have heard tearned counset for the parties and perused the Judgment impugned as also the record of the trial Court, 8. Learned counsel for the appeliant submits that the appellant has completed the sentence imposed upon him and he has been released from jail< He further submits that the prosecution has not adduced any eyidence to establish the fact that the accused is the person who has caused grievous injuries on the body of injured Nohar by throwing acid- 9. On theother hand, iearned counse! appearing on behaif of the State/ respondent supported the Judgment and submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts, 10.In orderto appreciate the contentions of the parties and establish complicity of the accused in the crime in question, I have examined the material avaiiable on record, Nohar Lai Sahu (PW-11) has stated in his evidence that on the foteful day at 7-7,30 p.m. he was preporing eggs for the customers, the accused came to his shop, he was holding some liquid in a glass and he poured the said liquid over his body and coused burn injuries over his shouider, neck, chest, hands, ear & eye, He was admitted in the hospital. 11. Manohar Sohu (PW-1) has stated that Nohar received burn injuries, but he cannot say that who has caused such injuries. The prosecution has declared this wtness has hostiie, Bataram Yadav (PW-2) & Krishna Sen (PW-3) have not supported the case of the prosecution, Abhibsh (PW-5) has a!so not supported the case of the pro$ecution< Bharat Sahu (PW-6) has stated that on the fateful day Nohar received burn injuries, but Nohar has not toid him the name pf the accused. The prosecution has declared this witness also hostile. 12. Most of the witnesses present on the spot hove not supported the case of the prosecution, however, they have not denied the incident, they have simpiy stoted that they have not seen the person who had thrown acid on the injured. This is a case of acid burning, According to the case of the prosecution, the accused came with acid and poured the same over the body of Nohar in public place. This shows the daringness of the accused. In the light of such action non-corroboration by independent wltness is not abnormal. 13. Nohar Lal Sahu (PW-11) has specifically stated in his examination & cross- examination that the accused is the person who has poured acid over him and caused injuries. The injuries have been supported by the medjcoi eyidence of Dr. Y.C. Mishra (PW-7) which is sufficient for drawin9 inference that grievous injurie^ have been caused. After appreciating the evidence ovailable on record, the Court below has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 326 of the IP.C. Conviction of the appellant under Section 326 of the I.P.C, is sustainable under law. 14.As regards the sentence, taking into consideration the injuries sustained by injured Nohar and the manner in which the injuries were caused especiaily by throwing acid, although the appetlant has aiready suffered the sentence imposed upon him, he does not deserye anySympathy. 15. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any substance in the appeal, same is liabte to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed, Soma Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge