RAM PRASANNA SHARMA, J.

1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25-7-2012 passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) in Sessions Trial No. 152 of 2011 wherein the said Court has convicted the appellant for commission of offence under Sections 307 and 498-A of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs. 100/- and RI for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 100/- with default stipulations.

2. In the present case, complainant/victim is Madhumita Chatterjee who is wife of the appellant. As per version of the prosecution, she was married to appellant in the year 1990 and after marriage she was residing with the appellant at her matrimonial home where the appellant started quarreling with her after consuming liquor. On the date of incident i.e., 24-2-2011 when the victim was sitting in a computer center, appellant had thrown acid upon her as a result of which she sustained grievous burn injury. The matter was reported and investigated. After completion of trial, the trial Court convicted and sentenced him as aforementioned.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit as under:

(i) PW/1 Dinesh Banjare, PW/6 Bhagirathi Verma and PW/7 Vijay Verma turned hostile, therefore, conviction on the basis of complainant and other interested witnesses is not proper.

(ii) Injury whatsoever received by the complainant is not sufficient to cause death of the deceased, therefore, charge under section 307 of IPC is not established.

(iii) The trial Court has not discussed about the omissions, contradictions and improvements in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, therefore, finding of the trial Court is not sustainable.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supporting the impugned judgment would submit that the finding of the trial Court is based on proper marshalling of the evidence and the same is not liable to be interfered while invoking the jurisdiction of the appeal.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the court below in which impugned judgment is passed.

6. In the present case, date of incident is 24-2-2011 and place of incident is one Ram Krishna Centre, which is situated at main road, Mowa within jurisdiction of Police Station Pandari. Report was lodged on the same day at Police Station Pandari naming the appellant as culprit and it is clearly mentioned in the FIR regarding cruelty and acid throwing upon her by the appellant. Victim has lodged FIR against her husband/appellant on the same day and she is firm to her version before the trial Court. PW/15 Madhumita Chatterjee/victim deposed before the trial Court that the appellant used to beat her after consuming liquor. She was running computer centre at Mowa in the year 2009 and on the date of incident, the appellant threw acid on her. Version of this witness is supported by version of Sanjay Chakrabarti (PW/16), Vijay Verma (PW/7) and Subhash Chakrabarti (PW/2).

7. From the evidence of all these witnesses, it is established that the appellant subjected the victim to cruelty and assaulted her by throwing acid on her body. All the witnesses have been subjected to searching cross examination, but nothing could be elicited in favour of defence. There is nothing on record to show that the prosecutrix has falsely roped her husband in a false charge. Version of the victim and other witnesses is incriminating piece of evidence against the appellant and this court has no reason to say that they are falsely roping the appellant. There is nothing to say that the appellant has been falsely implicated for one or other reason. Dr. Devendra Nayak (PW/19) who examined the victim on 24-2-2011 at Balaji Hospital, Raipur, deposed that she was brought in serious condition after sustaining 60% deep burn injuries. She was kept in Incentive Care Unit (ICU) for 40 days where four complicated operations were done to her and in the me