JUDGMENT :

Joymalya Bagchi, J. :

1. Appellants were made to stand trial on charges being framed under sections 307/34, 326/34 and 459/34 IPC. The gist of the prosecution case levelled against the appellants is as follows:

2. Appellants are related to the victim, P.W. 2. Appellant No. 1 is her uncle, while appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are the cousins of appellant No. 1. These appellants along with one Hasibul Sk who was minor at the time of occurrence, had a dispute with the father of the victim over construction of a bathroom and latrine adjacent to their house. Her father was digging a pit at the same place. Over such dispute, the appellants had assaulted her father. She lodged a complaint against the appellants. Out of grudge, on 20th April 2009 around 11 p.m. while victim P.W. 2 was sleeping in her room, the appellants trespassed into the room and threw acid on her face. As a result, she suffered acid burn injuries and lost sight in her left eye. She was initially treated at Kaliganj PHC and thereafter Berhampore Hospital. She was finally discharged on 25th May 2009. On 22nd April 2009 Asnahara Bibi, elder sister of the victim, lodged written complaint which was registered as Kaliganj PS case no. 171 of 2009 dated 22.04.2009 against the appellants. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants and they were put on trial. In the course of trial, prosecution examined 13 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. In conclusion of trial, learned trial Judge by impugned judgment and order dated 31.01.2013 and 01.02.2013 convicted the appellants for commission of offence punishable under Sections 307/326/459 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5000/-each in default, to suffer imprisonment for one year, for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, to suffer imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.3000/-each, in default, to suffer imprisonment for one year, for the offence punishable under section 326/34 IPC and to suffer imprisonment for life and also pay a fine of Rs.3000/-each, in default, to suffer imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under section 459/34 IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. Appellants have challenged their conviction and sentence in this appeal.

4. Mr. Chakraborty, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the identification of the appellants by the victim is unreliable. Her sister (P.W. 1) deposed the victim told her she could not identify the assailants in the darkness. Before the investigating officer the victim stated that she could not see anything with her own eyes and her sister stated the assailants fled away from her room. Names of the miscreants had not been disclosed before the treating doctor at Kaliganj PHC or Berhampore Hospital. Even before registration of F.I.R., two of the appellants namely Sattar Sk and Neki Sk were arrested. Hence, original F.I.R. had been suppressed and written complaint of P.W. 1 cannot be treated as F.I.R. Due to prior enmity, appellants have been falsely implicated. Independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. Accordingly, the appellants are entitled to an order of acquittal.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Bapuli with Mr. Bhattacharya, learned Counsels appearing for the State submits that the prosecution case has been proved through cogent and reliable evidence. They argued Sahanara Khatun, P.W. 2 deposed the manner in which she had been attacked by the appellants. Her elder sister Asnahara Bibi (P.W. 1) was present in the house and saw the appellants run away. Similarly, P.W. 8, brother of the appellant who was sitting in an adjoining house also saw the appellants run away from the place of occurrence. As the family members were busy with the treatment of the victim there was some delay in lodging FIR. Failure to record names in the medical papers per se would no