Rajiv Sharma, J.

The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 05.08.2010, rendered by learned Sessions Judge, Roorkee, District Haridwar in Sessions Trial No. 72 of 2010, whereby the respondent-accused, who was tried with and charged for the offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C., was acquitted.

2. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that PW1 Kunwar Singh submitted a written report to the Police Station, Roorkee on 18.12.2009, mentioning therein, that his daughter Km. Kavita was coming back to her house on 18.12.2009 at 2.30 P.M. after taking tuitions. When she reached near the house of Shehnawaz, Advocate, she noticed that the accused/respondent was chasing her. He was carrying a mug in his hand, which contained acid. The accused ran behind the daughter of the complainant by proclaiming that he will kill her and while saying so, he threw acid on PW2 Kavita. The face of Kavita was burned. Thereafter, the accused ran away from the spot. The victim was taken to the Joint Hospital, Roorkee for treatment. The matter was investigated and challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities.

3. The prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses in support of its case. The statement of the accused was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. He denied the case of the prosecution. The trial court acquitted the accused vide the impugned judgment dated 05.08.2010. Hence, the State has come up in appeal before this Court.

4. Mr. Amit Bhatt, learned A.G.A. for the State/appellant has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused.

5. Mr. Mohd. Umar, learned counsel for the respondent/accused, has supported the judgment dated 05.08.2010.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment very carefully.

7. PW1 Kunwar Singh, father of victim, has testified that he works as a Fitter in the Laboratory. He was present in his office on 18.12.2009. His daughter informed him telephonically that somebody has poured acid on her. He reached his home. He noticed burn injuries on the body of his daughter. He inquired from his daughter about the manner in which the incident took place. She told that the accused started chasing her and he was insisting her to stop, however, she did not stop. The accused was carrying a box (container) in his hand. When his daughter reached near the house of Shehnawaz, Advocate, accused proclaimed that since she is not interested in listening him, he would ruin her life. Thereafter, he poured acid on her body. She received severe burn injuries. The accused left the spot after hurling abuses on her. He (PW-1) father of the victim, reported the matter to the S.H.O., Police Station Roorkee. The accused was acquainted with the family members of the victim. The Police has taken into possession the burnt hair, sweater, jeans and shirt of the victim.

8. PW1 Kunwar Singh, in his cross examination, has admitted that he was not the eyewitness of the incident. He received the information from his daughter on telephone between 2.30 P.M. to 3.00 P.M. He reached his house with his colleagues. He took his daughter to the hospital. His daughter was admitted for a night in the hospital. Thereafter, the matter was reported to the Police. The complaint was lodged by his friend.

9. PW2 Kavita, the victim, has categorically testified in her examination-in-chief that when she was coming back from the tuitions on 18.12.2009, at about 2.30 P.M., the accused, whom she recognized in the Court, was standing in the street. He was carrying a box (container) in his hand. He started chasing her. The accused, at an isolated place, near the house of Shahnawaz, Advocate poured acid on her. She tried to save herself. The acid had fallen on her body. She felt burning sensation. Her clothes were also burnt. The accused was shoutin