1. The convicted sole accused is the appellant herein.

2. In this appeal, the appellant/accused challenges the conviction passed by the learned III Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Coimbatore for the offences under Sections 326(A) of I.P.C, and 506(ii) of I.P.C and sentencing him to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 326 (A) IPC and also sentencing him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 506(ii) IPC.

3. The respondent-police filed a final report before the jurisdictional Magistrate alleging that on 22.03.2014 at about 4.00 a.m, when the victim namely, Suseela along with his cousin brother Manikandan and witness Ranjith Kumar were extracting gold materials from the waste water of the goldsmith shop in Telugu Road in Ukkadam, Coimbatore (in front of Manoj Bakery) at around 4.30 a.m, the accused who came over there and questioned the victim Suseela as to "why she is not speaking to him” ? As the victim was keeping in silence, being angry with the victim Suseela the accused by stating that threw acid from the bottle which was kept in the hip on the right face of the victim Suseela, thereby the victim Suseela suffered simple injury on her right face, right forehand, left thigh, right forehead and left chest and also created a permanent scar on her and when the said victim was raising alarm out of the pain, the witnesses Manikandan and Ranjith Kumar came to rescue her and at that time, the accused criminally intimidated them and threw acid on their face also and escaped from the scene, and thereby committed the offences under Sections 326(A) and 506(ii) of I.P.C.

4. After observing the formalities, the case was numbered as S.C.No.199 of 2014 and made over to III Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.

5. After framing of the charge under the above said Sections, the matter was posted for trial and during the time of trial, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.11 and marked Exhibit P1 to P10 and also marked MO1 bottle containing remaining portion of the acid.

6. On appreciation of the private prosecution witnesses P.W.1, the victim girl and taking note of the medical evidence of P.W.7 Doctor along with the Accident Registers Ex.P7 and P8, the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Coimbatore convicted the accused for the above said Sections and sentenced him as stated supra.

7. Aggrieved by the said order of the conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

8. Heard both sides and perused the records.

9. The following Points arise for consideration :-

(i) Whether the prosecution has proved the charges under Section 326(A) I.P.C against the accused beyond reasonable doubt?

(ii) Whether the prosecution proved the charge under Section 506(ii) I.P.C

(iii) Whether the judgment of the trial Court is sustainable in law?

(iv) and to what other relief?

10. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that

(i) in the absence of any permanent disfigurement, the offence under Section 326(A)I.P.C is not attracted and

(ii) there is a discrepency in quantity of acid, 10 m.l between the seizure magazar and the report of the Forensic Department, touching the root of the prosecution.

11. Relying upon Ex.P7-Accident Register, wherein the injury was classified as simple in nature, the learned counsel for the appellant further contended that since the injuries are simple in nature that does not fall under the category of “grievous injury” as defined under Section 325 I.P.C., and hence, conviction under Section 326 (A) I.P.C or 326(B) IPC is not sustainable in law and prayed for setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Session Judge.

12. The learned Government Advocate (crl. side) appearing for the respondent made submission in support of the judgment