The testimony of the victim and related eye witnesses, along with surrounding circumstances and consistency of statements, is crucial in establishing the guilt of the accused.

JUDGMENT :

Deepak Gupta, J.

This appeal by the State is directed against the judgement dated 28.10.2005 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Court No. 2, Mandi whereby she acquitted the accused of having committed an offence punishable u/s 326 IPC. The prosecution story is that the accused on 7th April, 2001 threw acid on the face of the victim causing grievous injuries to her. The learned trial Court after trial acquitted the accused and hence this appeal by the State.

2. The undisputed facts are that the prosecutrix (PW-3) Sheela Devi was taken to the hospital on 7th April, 2001 before noon with alleged history of acid being thrown on her by some passer-by about 15 minutes earlier. The police was informed about this incident telephonically by the doctor. PW-2 Dr. Priya, M.O. Zonal Hospital, Mandi, who found the following injuries on the person of injured Sheela Devi:-

i) There are burn mark on the right side of face from right eye brow to the chin, as shown in the diagram.

ii) There was haziness of right cornia for that referred the patient to eye specialist.

iii) There were burn on the front of the neck as chemical trickled from the face as shown in the diagram.

iv) There were multiple burn injuries on the right side of breast outer quartrant.

v) Multiple burn injuries on the right shoulder.

vi) Multiple burn injuries on the right forearm and hand.

vii) Multiple burn injuries anterior on left forearm.

3. Sheela Devi was admitted in the hospital and according to the doctor the injuries were grievous in nature caused by the acid. After the police was informed, it reached the hospital and the statement of complainant Sheela Devi was recorded at about 2.30 p.m. The same is Ext.PW-3/A. In this statement Sheela Devi stated that she does sewing work at her house. On 7th April, 2001 she alongwith her mother Nikki Devi had gone to the Punjab and Sind Bank to withdraw money and buy some goods. She had gone to the bazaar at Mandi after withdrawing money from the bank and purchased some goods from the market. When they were returning home, near the Meat Market there is a shop of one tailor. At about 11.25 a.m one boy namely Dalip Kumar (accused) came from behind. This person was carrying a steel tumbler in his hand. He crossed Sheela Devi and then threw the contents of the glass on her face. Her right eye, right portion of her face, both her arms, throat, chest were burnt. Thereafter Dalip ran away from the spot and thereafter her mother had brought her to the zonal hospital Mandi for treatment. The complainant also stated that Dalip wanted to marry her. She did not agree to the proposal of Dalip since her marriage was already fixed. Dalip had threatened her earlier also that in case she did not marry him then he would destroy her face. She clearly stated that Dalip had thrown acid on her face. Thereafter investigation was carried out by the police and after completion of investigation the accused was charged with having committed the offence aforesaid. After trial he has been acquitted. Hence, this appeal.

4. Shri Vivek Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General submits that the learned trial Court has not only erred in acquitting the accused but according to him the judgement is perverse since no reason has been given for discarding the testimony of the victim and her mother. Merely because some pieces of the link evidence is missing, is no ground to acquit the accused. On the other hand Shri Tarlok Chauhan, learned counsel for the accused submits that in the MLC Ext.PW-2/A it is only alleged that acid was thrown by some passer-by and if actually the accused had thrown the acid the victim would have told his name to the doctor. He further submits that the prosecution has failed to prove from where the acid was bought; the recovery of tumbler is not proved; it is not proved that the tumbler contained acid and therefore, the chances of the accused having been falsely implicated cannot be ruled out.

5. We have gone through the evi