Acid attack conviction under IPC 326A upheld via hostile victim's reliable cross-examination and unexplained nitrate residues on accused's clothes; POCSO quashed lacking sexual intent.

JUDGMENT :

R.M. JOSHI, J.

1. This appeal filed by the convict takes exception to Judgment and Order dated 30.06.2022 passed in Special Case No. 80 of 2021 whereby the accused came to be convicted for the offences punishable under Section 326-A and 354-D, 506 of IPC and Sections 10 and 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’ for short) and was sentenced to suffer maximum imprisonment for a period of 10 years with fine and with default sentence.

2. On 23.11.2020, informant-victim while admitted in hospital made statement to the police which was recorded as first information report, wherein she claimed that she had friendship with accused prior to her marriage. After her marriage, accused was harassing her. On that day at about 08.00 a.m. victim went to meet accused by wearing a burka. They met near public toilet at Bhamre School, Parvati Darshan, Pune. At that time, their common friend Sohail was also present but was sitting in an auto rickshaw at about some distance. The victim claims that she was giving understanding to the accused that now she is a married woman and that he should not follow her. At that time, accused threatened her and threw some liquid on her face. As a result of the same, she got burning injuries to the left side of her face. She raised cries for help. The people who gathered at the spot took her to her parents place. On the basis of said information, crime came to be registered vide No.2639 of 2020 with Dattavadi Police Station, Pune.

3. The investigation into the said crime was conducted. The statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.PC. So also her medical certificates were included in the investigation papers. The spot panchanama was drawn. Seized muddemal was sent for chemical analysis and on receipt of the report, it was placed before the Trial Court. Accused came to be arrested. On completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed before the competent Court.

4. Charge was framed against the accused. Since he denied the charges, he was tried. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses i.e. PW-1 Sou. Roma Chandan Kamble, PW-2 Chandan Dnyandev Kamble, PW-3 Sohail Javed Shaikh, PW-4 Ayub Ibrahim Khan, PW-5 Satish Waman Jagtap, PW-6 Chetan Suresh Kadam, PW-7 Arpit Santosh Doshi, PW-8 Victim girl, PW-9 Dr. Navin V, PW-10 Jintendra Mansing Jawale, PW-11 Suryakant Hariba Saptale, PW-12 Vijay Shrawan Aware, PW-13 Ravindra Janardhan Kaspate, 5. Apart from oral evidence, prosecution plays reliance on documentary evidence such as, CA Report (Exh. 19 and 20), Birth certificate of victim (Exh.45), Statement of victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. (Exh. 46), Injury certificate along with medical papers of victim (Exh.49), Seizure panchanama of clothes of victim (Exh.61), Seizure panchanama of clothes of accused (Exh.64), letter issued to cyber expert for obtaining the hash value of the pen drive (Exh.69) etc. The Trial Court found the evidence of prosecution sufficient to bring home guilt of the accused and hence recorded conviction against him by impugned judgment and order.

6. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that here in this case the prosecution witnesses including victim have turned hostile and therefore, there is absolutely no evidence in order to convict the Appellant for the alleged crime. It is submitted that the father of the victim so also the other independent witnesses have not supported the story of the prosecution with regard to accused thro