( 1 ) SHRI Deva Nand, appellant before this Court, is not satisfied with the finding of the learned Lower Court by which he was convicted u/s 307 Indian Penal Code. and sentenced to undergo R 1. fora period of 7 years.

( 2 ) HIS challenge is that in no way he has been connected with the offence charged However, before adverting to his pleas, it will be relevant to keep in mind the salient features of the prosecution case against the appellant. Smt Prem Lata was married to the present appellant. However, after sometime, their relations became strained, as a result of which she started living with her father in the servant quarters of Kothi no. 5, Mal Road, Timarpur, Delhi, AS per the prosecution allegations, on the intervening night of 26th and 27th of May, 1984, while Prem Lata was asleep, the accused threw on her sulphuric acid, as a result of which she was permanently disfigured and also lost one eye. On the basis of these allegations, a charge under Section 307 I P. C. was framed against the accused, who pleaded innocence and claimed a trial.

( 3 ) THE Lower Court relied upon the evidence of Prem Lata, which found corroboration from the evidence of PW-1. B. L. Gupta, PW-4 Dwarka Prasad and PW-9, Ram Milan, raising an accusing finger on the accused for throwing sulphuric acid and causing the injuries. The learned Lower Court also found corroborition from the recovery of a steel glass from the spot bearing the finger-prints of the accused and the recovery of his pyjama giving positive test for sulphuric acid.

( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant before this Court has challenged the testimony of the injured and the alleged eye-witnesses and has also tried to find fault with the Report of the CF. S. L. with regard to the finger-prims on the steel glass as well as the Exhibits showing positive tests for sulphuric acid. None of these arguments prima facie have any substance and are not borne out from the record.

( 5 ) PREM Lata is the most important witness. She is the victim of the assault. In her statement before the Court, she deposed that on the intervening night of 26th and 27th May, 1984, while she was lying asleep outside her quarter, alongwith other persons. The accused came to her at about 12 mid-night and told her that he would like to sleep with her. She resisted the attempt but before leaving, the accused threatened her that he would throw acid upon her and will not allow her to live any longer. She further goes on to depose that the accused came back at 1. 45 A. M. that night while she was still awake. At that time, the accused threw acid on her person with the help of a steel glass which fell on her face, breasts, neck, right arm and no her backside, as at that time she was lying sideways on the wooden Takht. She immediately got burning sensation and cried out for help as a result of which the persons sleeping over there got awakened. However, the accused succeeded in his escape. She was immediately removed to the hospital in a taxi by B L. Gupta, Dwarka Prased and Ram Milan, who got her admitted.

( 6 ) PW-1 Shri B. L. Gupta has supported her version in all material particulars. PW-3 Dwarka Prasad and PW-9 Ram Milan had not supported Prem Lata insofar as seeing the accused running away from the place of occurrence or Prem Lata telling them immediately after the incident that it was the doing of her husband, but both of them were responsible for removing her to the hospital and the recovery of the articles from the place vide memes. Ex. PW3/b, PW3/c and PW3/d.

( 7 ) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the accused is that the conduct of Smt. Prem Lata in not telling the other witnesses of her husband having come at 12 mid-night with a view to indulge in forced cohabitation is a circumstance which will throw doubt on her testimony of the accused having poured the sulphuric acid at a later time. In my opinion, Smt. Prem Lata had given a valid ex-planation. According to her, she did not feel ter