Point of law : Offence under Section 307 of IPC which was available to the prosecution in the absence of Section 326A of IPC., was justifiable. Since prosecution has invoked Section 326A of IPC and trial Court accepting the prosecution case, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 326A of IPC., and ordered for imprisonment of life, convicting the accused again for the same action under Section 307 of IPC would certainly require interference by this Court by resorting Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT :

B. VEERAPPA, J.

1. The accused filed the present criminal appeal against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.02.2016 made in S.C.No.86/2014 on the file of the II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Davangere sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rupees Ten Lakhs with default clause for the offence punishable under the provisions of Section 326A and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.50,000/-for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC with default clause.

I. FACTS OF THE CASE

2. The case of the prosecution is that, initially, the accused has made proposal to marry the victim-PW.8 and her family members did not give consent for the same, thereby, the accused felt disgusted and with an intention to take revenge on her, he decided that she should not marry anyone else and to disfigure her face or to take her life, on 31.01.2014 at about 4.40 p.m., when PW.8 was proceeding on public road situated near Malladara Gowramma house along with PW.3-Raghu, the accused came on his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA 17/EL 5938 with an intention to disfigure her face so as to prevent her from marrying anybody, he threw acid on her face, back, hands and caused grievous corrosive injuries and thus, disfigured her face and body. During the acid attack on PW.8-the victim, acid also fell on PW.3-Raghu and he also sustained corrosive injures on his face and head and thus, the accused caused corrosive injuries to both PW.8 & PW.3.

3. Based on the complaint lodged by PW.11-Rangappa-the brother of the victim, the Jurisdictional Police registered Cr.No.24/2014 under the provisions of Sections 326A, 326B and 307 of IPC and after investigation, filed charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences.

4. After committal of the matter, learned Sessions Judge secured the presence of the accused and framed charges on 21.01.2014 under the provisions of Section 307, 326A and 326B of IPC against the accused and read over and explained the charges to the accused in the language known to him. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined in all PW.1 to PW.24 and marked the material documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P24 and material objects as MOs.1 to 8. An exercise note book was marked as Ex.D1 by defence. After completion of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the statement of the accused as contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C was recorded and the accused denied all incriminating circumstances adduced against him by the prosecution witnesses. He has not adduced any evidence except marking Ex.D1.

6. Based on the aforesaid material on record, learned Sessions Judge framed two points for consideration as under:

"(1) Whether the prosecution prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt that, on 31.1.2014 at about 4.40 PM when CW.8 Kavitha D/o Hanumanugowda, alongwith CW.9 Raghu S/o.Nayaruj, was proceeding on a public road situated near the house of Malladura Gowramma. situated at Kokkunur village, Hariharu latuk, thus accused came on his motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KA 17/ EL 5938, and he with an intention to disfigure her face and also to prevent her from marrying anybody, as she refused to marry him, he threw acid on her face, back, hands and caused grievous corrosive injuries to her, knowingly that such injuries are likely to cause death of CW 8 and thus he has made an attempt on the life of CW.8, and if by that act if he had caused her death, then he would have been guilty of murder, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec: 307 of IPC?

2. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, on the above said date, time and place, this accused with an intention to disfigure the face of CW.8 Kavitha and also to pre