IMPORTANT POINT
The testimony of the victim of a crime does not require corroboration if it inspires confidence and can be the basis for conviction. The court's interference in concurrent findings of fact is limited.

ORDER :

1. This criminal revision is filed against the judgment dated 29.3.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No.30/2009 whereby learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Manendragarh dismissed appeal of revisioner and affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.12.1999 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Manendragarh in Criminal Case No.621/1997 convicting applicant under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and sentencing him to undergo RI for 03 years with fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo RI for 06 months.

2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 03.11.1997 at about 10:15 p.m. in night, the complainant was going to his house after closing his shop. When complainant reached near temple of Chanwari-daand, revisioner appeared and threw acid upon him. Complainant caught hold of revisioner by his hands for some time, however, revisioner managed to flee from there. Complainant was taken to the hospital and thereafter report of incident was lodged in concerned police station. Due to acid throwing, complainant suffered burn injuries on his chest, ear, cheek, left eye, lips, neck etc. Based on said complaint, offence under Section 326 of IPC was registered against revisioner and he was arrested. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed by police against revisioner, followed by framing of charge against him by the Court below under Section 326 of IPC. Revisioner abjured his guilt and sought for trial.

3. So as to prove complicity of accused/revisioner in the crime in question, prosecution has examined as many as six witnesses. Statement of accused/revisioner was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in which he pleaded innocence and false implication in the case.

4. After hearing the parties and going through material available in record including evidence of witnesses, learned Judicial Magistrate, convicted the revisioner under Section 326 of IPC and sentenced him in the manner as described in Paragraph No.1 of this order. Revisioner preferred criminal appeal before the Court of Sessions challenging his conviction, which was also dismissed by the impugned judgment.

5. Learned counsel for revisioner submits that the impugned judgments suffer from perversity and illegality for the reason that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate the circumstances brought on record which have rendered testimony of injured complainant (PW-1) untrustworthy and unreliable. As per case of prosecution, the incident occurred on the road at about 10:15 p.m. in the night of 03.11.1997 and at the time of incident, assailant had covered himself from blanket. Thus it is clear that the place of incident was dark, in FIR or statement of complainant there is no mention of any source of light on the spot. Since it was totally dark and there was no source of light on spot, it was not possible for the complainant to recognize the assailant. In such a situation, possibility of someone else throwing acid on the complainant cannot be ruled out and therefore, sole testimony of PW-1 could not have been made basis to hold that revisioner was responsible for the acid burns sustained by complainant (PW-1). He further submits that the complainant has borrowed money from revisioner and in order to avoid repayment of borrowed money, the complainant has falsely implicated the revisioner in instant offence. He also contended that the doctor, who examined the complainant (PW-1), has opined in his report Ex.P-4 that the injuries noticed on complainant were simple in nature. Since no grievous injury is suffered by complainant, the trial Court erred in holding revisioner guilty for the offence under Section 326 IPC

6. In alternate, learned counsel for revisioner submits that if this Court comes to conclusion that there is no perversity in the finding of guilt recorded by trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court, then considering that revisioner is the first offender, inci