Medical evidence must prove permanent privation of sight for Section 326 IPC conviction; otherwise, convict under Section 324 IPC.

O R D E R

Aggrieved by the concurrent verdicts of conviction and sentence for the commission of offence under Section 326 I.P.C by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ranni and the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc) Fast Track Court-III, Pathanamthitta in C.C No.475/2000 and Crl.A No.459/2003 respectively, the accused in the aforesaid case has preferred this revision petition.

2. The prosecution case is that on 30.07.2000 at about 7:30 p.m, the petitioner, a lady aged 35 years, splashed acid upon the face of PW1 when the above person came to the courtyard of the residence of the petitioner, as invited by her. As a result of the aforesaid assault, PW1 is said to have suffered serious injuries including permanent privation of eye sight.

3. In the trial before the learned Magistrate, the prosecution examined nine witnesses as PW1 to PW9, and brought on record seven documents as Exts.P1 to P7. After evaluating the aforesaid evidence, the Trial Court found the petitioner guilty of Section 326 I.P.C, and convicted her thereunder. She was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years, and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- with a default clause of simple imprisonment for six months. The Trial Court further directed the petitioner to pay compensation Rs.50,000/- to PW1 under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. In default of payment of compensation, as directed above, the petitioner was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for one more year. Though the aforesaid verdict was challenged in appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who considered the appeal, declined to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence, and also upholding the direction to pay compensation. Aggrieved by the above concurrent verdicts of the Courts below, the petitioner is here before this Court with this revision petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

4. Among the witnesses examined from the part of the prosecution, PW1 is the de facto complainant, who suffered injuries as a result of the alleged acid attack of the petitioner. He has sworn before the Trial Court about the incident, which took place at about 7:30 p.m on 30.07.2000, when he came to the courtyard of the residence of the petitioner, as invited by her. According to the above witness, the petitioner splashed acid upon his face through the window on the southern side of her house. PW2, PW3 and PW5 are the other witnesses, who tendered evidence about the act of the petitioner pouring acid upon the face of PW1. Among the above witnesses, PW2 is the wife, PW3 the mother and PW5 the sister of PW1. All of them are said to have rushed to the place where PW1 was lying with burn injuries upon his face. The Courts below found the testimonies of PW1 to PW3 and PW5, fully reliable for arriving at the finding that the petitioner had splashed acid upon the face of PW1, and caused severe burn injuries. The aforesaid concurrent findings of the Courts below are not liable to be interfered with, in exercise of the revisional powers of this Court.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Courts below went wrong in finding the petitioner guilty of Section 326 I.P.C, since the evidence adduced by the prosecution did not establish that PW1 suffered grievous hurt due to the alleged physical assault committed by the petitioner. It is pointed out by the learned counsel that the medical evidence brought on record was insufficient to establish that PW1 lost his eye sight, as a result of the alleged act of the petit