The judgment establishes the liability of the appellants in an acid attack case, considering the evidence, legal provisions, and the victim's compensation. It emphasizes the application of Section 109 RPC and the need for adequate compensation for the victim.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellants have challenged judgment dated 03.06.2002 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu (‘the trial Court’ for short) whereby they have been convicted of offences under Sections 326/451 RPC. Challenge has also been thrown to order dated 03.06.2002 passed by the trial Court whereby the appellants, in proof of offence under Section 326 RPC, have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 05 years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- each and, in proof of offence under Section 451 RPC, the appellants have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 01 year and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-each. In default of payment of fine, the appellants have been directed to undergo further simple imprisonment for 01 year. The trial Court has also directed that the amount of fine, if recovered, be released in favour of the victim as compensation and all the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 28.03.1989 PW Inspector Som Dutt, who was posted as SHO P/S, Kanachak at the relevant time, went to the house of victim PW Chanchla Devi and recorded the statement of her mother PW Har Devi. She stated that her family has strained relations with family of appellant Paryog Raj and on 28.03.1989 at about 1 pm, all the appellants armed with khokhries trespassed into her house and launched an attack upon her daughter PW Chanchla Devi. She further stated that appellant Paryog Raj attacked PW Chanchala Devi with a khokhri and thereafter appellant Subash Chander also launched an attack on her head, as a result of which, PW Chanchala Devi suffered serious injuries and while saving herself, she received injuries on her fingers. It was also stated by her that appellant Paryog Raj sprinkled acid upon PW Chanchla Devi and the girls, who were sitting in the verandah at the relevant time, raised a hue and cry, where-after, the appellants fled away from the spot. PW Chanchala Devi was taken to Hospital in a serious condition. On the basis of this statement, FIR No. 52/1989 for offences under Sections 307/326/451 RPC and Section 4/27 of Arms Act was registered and investigation of the case was set into motion.

3. During investigation of the case, the bottle in which acid was carried by the assailants was seized. Some blades of wheat crop and grass, that were burnt due to sprinkling of acid and the blood stained/burnt clothes of PW Chanchla Devi were also recovered and seized. The statement of PW Chanchla Devi, who was lying admitted to the Hospital, was also recorded.

4. PW Chanchala Devi in her statement to the police stated that on the day of occurrence, her brother-in-law appellant Simran Singh came to her house and asked her to accompany him to which she objected. She further stated that in the meantime, appellant Paryog Raj also came over there and asked her to accompany him to which she again objected. She went on to state that appellant Paryog Raj launched an attack with a khokhri upon her head, where-after, appellants Subash Chander and Mohan Lal alias pappu, who were also on spot, launched an attack upon her with kokhri. She further stated that appellant Paryog Raj sprinkled acid on her head and other parts of her body, as a result of which, her clothes and her body suffered burns.

5. After conducting investigation of the case, offences under Sections 307/326/451 and 4/27 Arms Act were found established against the appellants. However, the khokhries could not be recovered. Appellants Simran Singh and Mohan Lal were arrested, whereas appellants Paryog Raj and Subash Chander absconded, but later on, they surrendered and they were bailed out by the Court.

6. Vide order dated 21.06.1990, charges for offences under Sections 451/307/326 RPC and 4/27 Arms Act were framed against the appellants and the prosecution was directed to lead evidence in support of the charges. Out of 19 witnesses cited in the challan, the prosecution examined 13 witness