Point of Law: Acid Attack - Eye witnesses - Admissibility of - As a consequence of fact that injuries to the witness is an inbuilt guarantee of his presence at scene of crime and because the witness would not want to let actual assailant go unpunished.

JUDGMENT :

AJAI TYAGI, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the respondent.

2. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 28.8.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5 Basti in S.T. No. 63 of 2014 (State Vs. Rahul Rajbhar) arising out of Case Crime No. 511 of 2013, under Sections 326-A I.P.C. Police Station Munderwa, District Basti convicting and sentencing the appellant for ten years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 20,000/- as fine under Section 326-A I.P.C. and further six months imprisonment in case of default of fine.

3. Relevant facts of this case are that on 10.05.2013 complainant Kanhaiya Lal son of Shivdas lodged an FIR in Police Station Munderwa, District Basti with the averments that on 10.05.2013 at about 4:30 AM his daughter Km. Pooja aged about 16 years was going to ease herself out with her mother Belmati and sister Km. Rinki; when she reached on the road in front of the village, accused Rahul Rajbhar who was sitting on the road, poured acid from a box upon his daughter Pooja, as a result of which, she sustained serious injuries on her face and other parts of the body. On account of raising alarm by his wife and daughter, accused fled away from the spot; many people of village had seen the occurrence.

4. Accused-appellant was charged and tried by learned trial court under Section 326-A I.P.C. and he was convicted and sentenced for that offence.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that accused is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case with delayed FIR. Injuries to the victim were of simple in nature and case was not proved by prosecution evidence; while on the other hand learned A.G.A. submitted that in this case PW-1 Pooja is the star witness; she has supported the prosecution case; her statement before the learned trial court is corroborated with medical evidence which is well proved by the doctor who conducted the medical examination of the victim. Km. Pooja remained admitted for 14 days in hospital and accused has been rightly convicted by the learned trial court.

6. In detailed arguments learned counsel for the appellant first of all argued that in this case there is a delay in lodging the FIR. It is submitted that as per the prosecution case, occurrence has taken place at about 4:30 AM while FIR was lodged at 6:00 PM. Statement of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded by Investigating Officer after 12 days of occurrence but perusal of the record shows that occurrence is said to have taken place at about 4:30 AM on 10.05.2013 and First Information Report was lodged at 6:40 AM that is near about after two hours of the occurrence. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant that FIR was lodged at 6:00 PM is against the record. Perusal of Chick F.I.R. Exb. KA-4 also shows that it was lodged at 6:40 AM; PW-6 constable Jang Bahadur Bharti also said in his statement that F.I.R. was lodged at 6:40. Moreover, there is an entry in general diary, Exb. Ka-5 of registration of case at 6:40 and giving Majrubi Chhithi to Km. Pooja for medical examination; medical examination report at the back of the Majrubi Chhithi Exb. KA-2 shows the time of medical examination as 10:55 AM. Hence, argument of learned counsel for the appellant that F.I.R. was lodged at 6 PM is totally against the record. Hence, it is obvious that there was no delay in lodging the FIR.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that PW-1 Km. Pooja has said in her cross examination that her sister Rinki and she are not from the same mother but are step-sisters. Smt. Belmati who was said to be with the victim at the time of said occurrence, is her step-mother who used to rebuke the victim whenever any mistake was committed by her. On 10.05.2013 at 8 O' clock in the night, victim's parents thrashed victim and her step-sister due to their going out from home.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that d