The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on testimonies, medical evidence, and the appellant's history of harassment to establish guilt and determine the appropriate sentence.

JUDGMENT

Joymalya Bagchi, J. - Appellant has assailed the impugned judgment and order dated 03.10.2018 and 04.10.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kalna, Burdwan in Sessions Trial No. 21 of 2017 arising out of Sessions Case No. 49 of 2017, convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Sections 448/326A of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under section 448 IPC and to suffer imprisonment for life, till death and to pay fine of Rs. 5,00,000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years more for the offence punishable under section 326 A IPC.

2. Prosecution case, as alleged, is to the effect that the appellant used to tease the victim girl for some time. Victim complained about the harassment to her parents. Matter was brought up with the parents of the appellant. They assured they would punish their son. However, appellant continued to tease the victim. Two months ago appellant came to the house of the victim and burnt down the television set. A 'salish' was held and he was forced to pay Rs. 5000/-. He threatened the victim he would punish her. On 12.12.2016 at 1 a.m. in the night, appellant entered the house of the victim by breaking the door and threw acid on her face and whole body. Her mother Malati Mahato (PW 1) also suffered acid burn injuries. Victim was initially admitted at Kalna hospital and thereafter treated at Burdwan Medical College and Hospital and then in Kolkata. Her mother Malati (PW 1) lodged written compliant resulting in registration of Purbasthali Police Station Case No. 553 dated 12.12.2016 under Sections 448/323/326A/307/509/427/436 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant. On the showing of the appellant, a bottle was recovered from a spot near the place of occurrence. Finger prints of the appellant were found on the bottle as per opinion of Finger Print Expert, PW 20. In conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant, his father Gouranga Mondal and one Sukanto Bagchi. Charges were framed against the appellant and co-accuseds under section 448/326A/307/120B of the Indian Penal Code. Accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In the course of trial, prosecution examined 21 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. Defence of the accused persons were one of innocence and false implication. In conclusion of trial, learned trial Judge by the impugned judgment and order dated 03.10.2018 and 04.10.2018 convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid. Appellant, however, acquitted of the charge under section 307 IPC. Co-accuseds were acquitted of all the charges.

3. Mr. Roy with Mrs. Das, appearing for the appellant argues name of the appellant had not transpired at the earliest opportunity when the victim was admitted at Kalna SD Hospital. I.O (PW 21) stated he had interrogated the victim at Kalna Hospital but her statement has not been produced. It is unclear when the solar lights were installed in the house of the victim. Whether the lights were functioning on the fateful night is also not proved. Identification of the appellant by PWs 1 and 3 is, thus, improbable. Referring to the evidence of the doctor PW 15, Mr. Roy argues victim may not have suffered acid burn injuries. He further submits motive of crime has not been proved. While in FIR it is stated no steps were taken with regard to appellant burning the television set, in Court witnesses deposed he had threatened the victim with punishment as he was compelled to pay money on such score. Under such circumstance, it is prayed appellant may be acquitted.

4. Mr. Das for the State argues P.W.s 1 and 3 have categorically deposed the appellant threw acid on the face of the victim. Medical evidence shows victim suffered acid burn injuries on her face and upper limbs. She was treated for a