The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; eyewitness testimony must be credible and corroborated to support a conviction.

Judgment :

MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL, J.

1. These criminal appeals are directed against the judgment dated 31.03.1989 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.5, Jaipur City, Jaipur (for brevity, “learned trial Court”) in Criminal (Sessions) Case No.61/1987 whereby, while convicting the accused-appellant (for brevity, “appellant”) under Section 326 IPC, he has been sentenced as under:

“Two years and six months’ rigorous imprisonment and imprisonment”.

2. The relevant facts in brief are that on a written report dated 13.07.1987 (Ex.P2) lodged by Shri Khan Mohammed with the Police Station Manak Chowk, Jaipur, an FIR dated 13.07.1987 (Ex. P3) under Sections 307 and 324 IPC came to be registered wherein, it was alleged that in the night at about 1:00-1:30 am, some unknown person threw acid on the body of his brother-Phool Mohammed and Saleem also informed him that an unidentified person has attacked him as also Shri Phool Mohammed with acid.

3. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant under Sections 324, 326 and 307 IPC. However, charge only under Section 307 IPC was framed. The appellant pleaded not guilty and demanded trial.

4. After trial, the learned trial Court has, while acquitting the appellant from the charge under Section 307 IPC, convicted and sentenced him, vide judgment impugned dated 31.03.1989, in the manner stated hereinabove.

5. The appeal no.133/1989 has been preferred by the appellant challenging his conviction whereas, the appeal no.216/1989 has been preferred by the State for enhancement of the sentence awarded to him.

6. Assailing the impugned judgment, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that findings of the learned trial Court are based on presumptions and assumptions. He submitted that while convicting him, the learned trial Court did not appreciate that there was no legally admissible evidence available on record to connect him with the alleged offence. Learned counsel submitted that although, the alleged eyewitnesses S/Shri Mangu Singh (PW8) and Ratan Lal (PW15) are Constables; still, they neither apprehended the appellant at the place of incident nor, they lodged the FIR after the incident which raises a serious doubt about veracity of their statement. He, therefore, prayed that the appeal be allowed, the judgment impugned dated 31.03.1989 be quashed and set aside and the appellant be acquitted from the charge.

7. Opposing the prayer, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that findings of the learned trial Court, while recording conviction of the appellant, are based on cogent material on record which warrant no interference. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the appeal.

8. Advancing the prayer made in the appeal no.216/1989 preferred by the State, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that since, it is a case of acid attack wherein, the victim has suffered grievous injuries, looking to the gravity of the offence, the sentence awarded to the appellant by the learned trial Court is on very low side which requires to be enhanced suitably.

Heard. Considered.

9. Insofar as the acid attack on the victim-Shri Phool Mohammed is concerned, from the evidence available on record in the shape of testimony of Shri P.C. Vyas (PW14) who has examined the victim and has prepared the injury report (Ex. P19) and from the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 CrPC, it is established beyond doubt that he suffered injuries on account of it.

10. Now, the moot question for consideration of this Court is whether the prosecution has been able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant is guilty of the aforesaid acid attack.

11. The injured-Shri Phool Mohammed has stated as PW10 that in the midnight of 12-13 July, 1987, when he was sleeping at about 1:00-1:30 pm at his cycle shop in Chaura Rasta, Jaipur, he felt burning sensation and found the appellant standing before him when he woke up. He has alleged that acid was thrown upon him by the appellant. In his cross-examination,