IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere testimony of the victim is insufficient without corroboration.

JUDGMENT :

MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL, J.

1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29.03.1989 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhalawar (for brevity ‘the learned trial court’) in Sessions Case No. 19/87 whereby, while convicting the accused-appellant (for brevity ‘the appellant’) under Section 326 IPC, he has been sentenced as under:

2. The relevant facts in brief are that on the parcha bayan (Ex.P1) of the injured Prakash Chand Chawadiya dated 21.9.1986, an FIR No. 17/1986 (Ex.P14) came to be registered at Police Station Jhalawar against the appellant and co-accused persons namely; Abrar and Salim under Section 307/34 IPC. It was alleged in the FIR that on that very day at about 6 pm, when he was going from New Cloth Market to his home on a bicycle, in front of Narayan Hotel, the appellant threw acid upon him resulting into burn injuries. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant and the co-accused persons. Charge under Section 307 IPC was framed against the appellant whereas, charge under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC was framed against the co-accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and demanded trial.

3. After conducting trial, while, co-accused persons were acquitted from the charge under Section 307/34 IPC, acquitting the appellant under Section 307 IPC, he has been convicted under Section 326 IPC and sentenced as stated hereinabove by the learned trial court vide judgment dated 29.3.1989.

4. Assailing the judgment impugned dated 29.3.1989, Shri Rinesh Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the so called eye witnesses to the incident, i.e. S/Shri Ganesh Lal (PW-3) and Tilak Raj (PW-5) have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution case. He submits that the learned trial court erred in relying upon the testimony of Shri Rajendra Shanker Sharma (PW-2) who was a planted witness ignoring that his testimony did not inspire confidence as to its genuineness. Learned counsel further submits that the prosecution has come out with a false and concocted story inasmuch as they have suppressed the true genesis of the case. Inviting attention of this Court towards the FIR (Ex.P14), he submits that it contains an endorsement that the first information was received on that day at about 8.15 pm which was recorded at S. No. 808 in the daily diary (rojnamcha). Learned counsel asserts that the prosecution has neither produced the daily diary to reflect in what manner they received the information at about 8.15 pm nor, it could explain that if it received the information for the first time at about 8.15 pm, how the statement of the victim came to be recorded at about 7.30 pm by a police officer? He further submits that in the FIR, it was alleged that acid was thrown by the appellant from a jug whereas, a mug has been recovered used allegedly in commission of the offence. Referring to the cross-examination of the injured (PW-1), learned counsel submits that he has categorically admitted that the recovered mug is not the jug which was used in commission of the offence.

5. Advancing his submissions, Shri Rinesh contends that the prosecution has not been able to prove the site plan (Ex.P3). He submits that while, one of the attesting witnesses to it namely Shri Ganesh Lal (PW-3) has turned hostile, the prosecution has failed to examine the remaining attesting witness Shri Chandu Lal. Learned counsel further submits that the investigation in the present case was tainted which is reflected from the fact that Ex.P16-copy of the malkhana register produced by the prosecution reflects entry of articles received on different dates i.e. 22.01.1986, 28.01.1986 and 24.05.1986 on the same page without any serial number. Shri Gupta submits that the learned trial Court erred in recording a finding of his conviction based on mis-appreciation of evid