JUDGMENT

This is an appeal against conviction. The appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 224, 326B, 332 and 308 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The appellant was in judicial custody. The alleged offences were committed on his bid to escape from custody when he was brought to the Sessions Court, Kalpetta for production before that court. It was on 22.10.2013. In S.C.No.129 of 2013, a case previously initiated against him, he was convicted and sentenced. Subsequently, as per the judgment dated 11.03.2015 in S.C.No.196 of 2014, he was convicted and sentenced in this case as well.

2. While in jail, he preferred this jail appeal. A counsel was appointed for the appellant.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The allegations against the appellant based on which he was put to trial are the following:

He was brought to the Sessions Court, Kalpetta by PW1 at about 10.00 a.m. on 22.10.2013. He demanded the consent of PW1 to go to toilet. Accompanied by PW1, he went to the toilet and on coming out, he threw bleaching powder obtained from the toilet at the face of PW1. The appellant tried to escape, PW1 followed. PW1 with the help of PW2, a Clerk in the District Court, prevailed over and apprehended the appellant. The appellant, in order to get rid of PW1, assaulted him and tried to hit PW1 using a stone at his head. PW1 could ward off that hit. PW1 obtained injuries including infirmities in the eyes.

5. At the trial, PWs.1 to 15 were examined and Exts.P1 to P17 were marked. MOs.1 to 3 were identified. The court below held that the evidence proved beyond doubt that the appellant committed all the offences charged against him. The judgment of conviction and sentence is assailed in this appeal on various grounds.

6. The essential contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the evidence is insufficient to find that the appellant tried to escape custody and attacked PW1.

7. PW1 narrated in detail the incidents transpired.

PW2 is a clerk attached to the District Court, Kalpetta. He saw the appellant throwing bleaching powder to the face of PW1 and the overt acts followed. He joined PW1 to avoid the escape of the appellant. PW2 is totally an independent witness and his evidence does not contain any inconsistency.

8. PW1 was treated by one Dr.Praythiesh Bruce at the Govt.Hospital, Kalpetta. The certificate issued by him was proved by PW13, a colleague. PW1 was also treated by an Ophthalmologist, PW14 at Ahalia Hospital, Kalpetta. Ext.P16 is the certificate issued by PW14. The medical evidence rendered sufficient corroboration to the evidence of PW1 regarding the injuries and infirmities sustained by him.

9. Based on the statement of PW1, Ext.P1, a crime was registered by PW10 without any delay. Similar are the versions of PW1 in court and that contained in Ext.P1. Therefore, Ext.P1 also renders confirmation to the evidence of PW1 in court. From the aforesaid evidence, the overt acts attributed to the appellant constituting the offence charged against him have been proved beyond doubt. The findings of the court below in that regard are not liable to be interfered with.

10. Ext.P14 is the certificate of chemical analysis. The powder thrown on PW1 was collected from the scene of occurrence and it was examined in the Chemical Examiners’ Laboratory. As per Ext.P14, it was reported that the material examined was bleaching powder made up of calcium hypochlorite. The court below held that the said material was an acid and therefore an offence under Section 326B of the IPC was committed. It is not reported in Ext.P14 that the material examined was an acid. The contrary finding of the court below is incorrect. Calcium hypo-chlorite, which is the content of the bleaching powder, is a base and not an acid. When prosecution did not produce any evidence to show that the powder thrown on the face of PW1 was an acid, conviction of the appellant for an offence under S