IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 471 of 2002 Date of Decision: 29.7.2011 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus. Janaki Dass and others …Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No. For the Appellant: Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. A.G. For the Respondents No. 1 and 2: Mr. B.C. Verma, Advocate. Per Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) 1. This appeal by the State is directed against the judgement dated 1st April, 2002 whereby the accused have been acquitted of having committed offences punishable under Sections 323 and 326 read with Section 34 I.P.C. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 25.6.1994 complainant Shiv Charan (PW-4) was going to the jungle to answer the call of the nature. The accused persons met him on the way and Janaki accused No.1 inflicted danda blow on his left ear and thereafter his 2 wife Sunita threw acid on the face of the complainant. On the basis of this complaint F.I.R Ext.5/A was recorded. The police thereafter carried out investigation in the matter and after completion of investigation the accused were challaned and charged with having committed offences punishable under Sections 323 and 326 read with Section 34 I.P.C. 3. At the outset, it may be stated that as far as accused Manohar Lal is concerned there is virtually no evidence against him. None of the independent witnesses has supported the complainant and the case revolves around the statement of the complainant himself who was examined as PW-4. Whereas in the original complaint he stated that he had first gone to collect water and thereafter went to answer the call of the nature in his statement in Court he only stated that he had gone to answer the call of the nature. In the original complaint he had stated that Janaki had given him a blow with Danda on his ear but when he appeared in the witness box he stated that Janaki Dass’s wife Sunita accused asked him whether he will go to attend a marriage at village Shareni. The complainant stated that he was not going to attend the marriage. Then Janaki Dass appeared and hit him on the ear and threw some chemical substance in his eyes 3 which caused a burning sensation. He also felt giddy. His shirt also got burnt. He then stated that this item was thrown by Sunita. Then Heera Singh came to the spot and saved him from the accused and took him to his house. 4. The prosecution, to connect the accused with the commission of the offence, had taken into possession the bottle from which the chemical substance was thrown at the complainant vide seizure memo Ext.PW- 4/A. The bottle which was an important piece of evidence was not produced or shown to the complainant when he appeared in Court. It is only PW- 5 ASI Som Nath who states that he arrested the accused on 17.7.1997 and then Manohar Lal accused made a disclosure statement to the effect that he led the police party to the spot from where he had purchased the acid. He consequently led the police to the house of Balku from whom he allegedly purchased the acid. According to the prosecution Manohar Lal had given the acid to Sunita. PW-2 Balku has not supported the prosecution story at all. 5. According to the complainant after acid was thrown on him Heera Singh reached the spot and saved him from the clutches of the accused. However, PW-14 Heera Singh stated that when he was going to answer 4 the call of the nature he met the complainant and then the complainant told him that the accused had thrown acid on him. 6. There can be no manner of doubt that in a case like the present one, the accused can be convicted even on the sole evidence of the complainant. However, the evidence must inspire confidence and must be corroborated by the other circumstances. In the present case all the corroborative evidence is missing. The bottle from which the acid was thrown has not even been shown to the complainant or any other witness by the prosecution. According to the chemical analyst he after submitting his report had sent the sealed parcel back to the I.O. but the I.O did not even care to step into the witness box. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to link all the evidence together to show that it was the accused alone who committed the offences. Therefore, we find no merit in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. The bailbonds furnished by the accused are ordered to be discharged. ( Deepak Gupta ) Judge. 29th July, 2011. ( Sanjay Karol ) ™ Judge.