Crl.A. 221/2006 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B D AGARWAL This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 16. 09.2006, passed by the learned Sri A M Mazumdar, learned Sessions Judge, Karimga nj, in Sessions Case No. 45 of 2006, under Sections 459/ 326 and 307 of the Indi an Penal Code. 2. The appellant has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonmen t for 10 (ten) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-, with default sentence of 3 (three) months for each offences. Being aggrieved with the conviction and sen tence, the accused has preferred this appeal. 3. Heard Sri N Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri B S Sinha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State of Assam. Also p erused the impugned Judgment and prosecution evidence. 4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that, both the informant and appellant were neighbours. The appellant was interested to marry the elder daugh ter of the informant and with this intention the appellant used to follow and ta unt the informant’s daughter and he had also proposed the elder daughter. When t his fact came to the notice of the parents of the victim girls it was reported t o the parents of the accused and that was not liked by the appellant. Hence, wit h a view to take avenge the appellant trespassed into the dwelling house of the informant in the evening hours of 20.02.2006 and threw some liquid substance (ac id) on the body of the informant’s daughters. At the relevant time, both the dau ghters of the informant were reading in a room and the appellant threw acid from the door. The appellant was identified by the 2 (two) victim daughters of the i nformant. After hearing hue and cry the mother and other persons rushed to the s pot and the girls were taken to the hospital, where they took treatment for abou t one month. On the next day of the incident, the FIR was lodged and after inves tigation, chargesheet was submitted. 5. In order to establish the offences, the prosecution examined alt ogether 8 (eight) witnesses, including the doctors and the Investigating Officer . The remaining witnesses are the informant, her victim daughters, cousins of th e informant and independent witnesses from neighbourhood. 6. With regard to the identification of the appellant, I find that both the victims have categorically deposed that they saw the appellant stepping inside the room and throwing liquid substance on their body. Not only the appel lant was known to the victims from their childhood but he was identified in the light of the lantern. The evidence tendered by the prosecution does not indicate the involvement of any person other than the appellant. Besides this, the previ ous conduct of the appellant and proposing one of the daughters of the informant and objection by the victims’ family are other circumstantial evidence to hold that the offence was committed by the appellant and none else. I make it clear t hat neither any specific alibi was taken by the appellant that he was not presen t at the place of occurrence nor he has given any suggestion to the prosecution witnesses that some other persons might have been involved in the offence. 7. With regard to the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, Sri Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant subm itted that the evidence tendered by the prosecution do no fulfill the ingredient s of Section 307. I also find from the record that the appellant was carrying sm all quantity of corrosive substance and the said substance was also thrown from the door itself. In other words, there is no evidence that the appellant went de ep inside the room and emptied the whole liquid substance on the body of the gir l with whom he had affairs. Had the appellant any intention to commit murder he would have targeted the eldest daughter of the informant with whom he had affair s. However, instead of that, the liquid substance was thrown from a little dista nce at random causing the injuries to 2 (two) daughters. Under such circumstance s, the conviction of the appellant, under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, is unsustainable and accordingly, set aside. 8. With regard to the conviction of the appellant under Sections 45 9 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code, there are overwhelming evidences that the of fence was committed after entering the dwelling house of the informant and that too during the night hours. Besides this, both the victim girls remained in the hospital for about one month. I am also of the view that since the victims had s uffered burn injuries they must have been under severe pain throughout the treat ment period and accordingly, eighthly of Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code is attracted. Consequently, the injuries have been rightly described as grievous a ssault by the Medical Officer and accepted by the trial Court. Accordingly, the conviction under Section 459 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code, are hereby upheld . 9. Coming to the question of sentence, it appears from the depositi on of the victim girls that within 6 (six) months of the incident, the burn scar s had almost disappeared. Besides this, the accused himself was a young boy of 1 8-19 years at the relevant time. In my considered opinion, these factors can be certainly considered to reduce the sentence. In my view, substantive sentence of 5 ‰ years (5 years 6 months) and a fine of Rs. 20,000/-, with default sentence of 3 (three) months for conviction of the offence under Section 326 of the India n Penal Code would meet the ends of justice since the sentence is directed to ru n concurrently, separate sentence under Section 459 of the Indian Penal Code, is not called for. 10. With the aforesaid modification in the conviction and sentence, the appeal stands dismissed. The Registry is directed to return the LCRs along w ith a copy of this Judgment forthwith, to the learned Sessions Judge, Karimganj. On receipt of the LCRs, the learned Sessions Judge, shall issue modified custod ial warrants.