JUDGMENT N.U. Beg, J. - This is a Govt. Appeal against the judgment of Sri B.D. Agarwal, Assistant Sessions Judge (II), Jaunpur dated 14-9-59 acquitting the five Respondents in this appeal, namely, (1) Akbar, (2) Wali Mohammad, (3) Ali Ahmad, (4) Abdul Haq and (5) Ghufran son of Mohammd Nazir of all the charges framed against them. The Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 were charged under Sections 147, 326/149, 326/34 and 395/397 IPC. The Respondent No. 5 was charged u/s 395/397 read with Section 109 IPC for having abetted the said offences. The Respondent No. 3 was further charged u/s 148 IPC. There was another accused person named Mukhtar who was also prosecuted in connection with the same transaction. Mukhtar, however, died before the trial, and we are not concerned with his case. The victim of the offences in respect of which the Respondents were charged was one Hakim Mukhtar. 2. The prosecution case is that Hakim Mukhtar was practising as Hakim at village Kheta Sarai which is situate within the jurisdiction of police station Sarai Khwaja in the district of Jaunpur. His relations with Ghufran, Respondent No. 5 in this appeal, were not good. Ghufran was practising in the same village as a homeopath Ghufran's brother Hakim Yakub was also practising as a Hakim in the same village. There was professional rivalry between them on the one hand and Ghufran's brother on the other. The latter bore a grudge against him as Hakim Mukhtar practice was better. 3. It was also alleged that Hakim Mukhtar had purchased some land from one Kalka Prasad. Ghufran had caused a suit to be filed by Akbar Respondent No. 1 against him. Ghufran, Abdul Haq and Mukhtar helped Akbar in the prosecution of his suit. Mukhtar and Abdul Haq also appeared as witnesses in the said suit. Hakim Mukhtar eventually won that case in May, 1958. 4. The third ground of enmity arose out of a suit brought by one Khelawan against Ghufran. In that suit Hafiz Amir, a relation of Mukhtar, appeared as a witness for Khelawan. Ghufran had asked Hakim Mukhtar to stop Hafiz Amir from giving evidence in the suit. Hakim Mukhtar refused to accede to his request. 5. Lastly it is alleged that Munshi Nazir father of Ghufran had embezzled a sum of rupees four or five thousand in his capacity as the manager of religious school. Ghufran had asked Hakim Mukhtar to stop Hafiz Amir from giving evidence in the suit. Hakim Mukhtar refused to accede to his request. 5. Lastly it is alleged that Munshi Nazir father of Ghufran had embezzled a sum of rupees four or five thousand in his capacity as the manager of religious school. Ghufran asked Hakim Mukhtar to support him. Hakim Mukhtar refused to do so. This further annoyed Ghufran. 6. The present incident is alleged to have taken place on the 14-6-58. Hakim Mukhtar used to reside in village Mani Kalan, and used to go to his dispensary in village Kheta Sarai every day. On that day he was returning from Kheta Sarai to his village in the evening. He had a sum of Rs. 400/ - in his front pocket, and about Rs. 64/ - or Rs. 65/ - in his side pocket. He was carrying this money with him on that evening, as he had promised to lend Rs 400/ - to one Qasim Ali who wanted this amount to purchase a bullock. He was going on a cycle on his way back. In the evening when he reached a railway crossing at Sheikhupur he saw Ghufran standing under some trees with a cycle. On going ahead when he had passed a place called Bahraicha Nala, he saw Akbar and Mukhtar rushing towards him with lathis in their hands. Wali Mohammad, Ali Ahmad and Abdul Haq also arrived on the scene, and belaboured him with lathis. They felled him down on the ground. Wali Mohammad snatched Rs. 400/ - from his pocket. Then he took a phial containing some acid from Ali Ahamd, and spilled it over his face, eyes and other parts of his body. Hakim Mukhtar felt intense pain. The incident was witnessed by one Izhar who immediately ran to village Mani Kalan to inform Hakim Mukhtar's son Abdul Samad about it. Hakim Mukhtar was left on the spot by the five assailants. With great difficulty he managed to crawl to a place called Kewatan which lies at the outskirts of village Mani Kalan. At Kewatan he met Dhondhai, and narrated the facts to him. In the ment(sic) his son Abdul Samad who had got news of the incident from Izhar reached Kewatan. From there Hakim Mukhtar was taken to Mani Kalan hospital. With great difficulty he managed to crawl to a place called Kewatan which lies at the outskirts of village Mani Kalan. At Kewatan he met Dhondhai, and narrated the facts to him. In the ment(sic) his son Abdul Samad who had got news of the incident from Izhar reached Kewatan. From there Hakim Mukhtar was taken to Mani Kalan hospital. Subsequently he was taken to Jaunpur hospital the same night, and was medically examined there. His dying declaration was recorded there. He was very restless at that time. He remained in the hospital for about four months. 7. The first information report of this incident was lodged at police station Kotwali at 10.30 a.m. by Abdul Samad. 8. The investigation in the case was conducted by Puran Chandra Misra, S.O. Sarai Khwaja. He went to the spot and prepared a site plan. Proceedings u/s s. 87 and 88 were taken against Wali Mohammad, Ali Ahmad and Abdul Haq. These persons subsequently surrendered themselves on 18-6-58. 9. The medical examination of Hakim Mukhtar on 14-6-58 disclosed the following injuries on his body: 1. Ist and IInd degree chemical burns over face and forehead, extending over top of head and lips and gums in front. 2. Chemical burn of cornea and conjunctive, cornea hazy and opaque. Pupil not seen, no vision on (R) side. 3. (L) Eye conjunctive, cornea clear, vision normal. 4. Ist and IInd degree burns (2) upper and lower arm in an area of 12" 4". 5. Ist and IInd degree burn (R) arm around elbow in an area of 4" 3" 6. Ist and IInd degree trunk, front and side (1) side in an area of 10" 7". 7. Ist degree burn chest in front of (R) side 6" 4". 8. Ist degree burn scalp posterior aspect 3" 1". 9. Ist degree burn back of neck 4" 11/2". 10. Contusion 3" 11/2" on the aspect (R) upper arm. 11. Contusion back and side of chest 5" 1" on (R). 12. Contusion 6" 11/2" across back of chest. 13. Contusion 4" 3/4", 1" above injury No. 12. 14. Contusion 7" 1", 11/2" above injury No. 13. 15. Contusion 7" 1" on back on (1) shoulder blade extending over (R) shoulder. Also small scars just where (R) knee and outer aspect (R) shoulder. 10. In the opinion of Dr. V.P. Dutt (P.W. 11) injury No. 2 was grievous. Injuries Nos. Contusion 4" 3/4", 1" above injury No. 12. 14. Contusion 7" 1", 11/2" above injury No. 13. 15. Contusion 7" 1" on back on (1) shoulder blade extending over (R) shoulder. Also small scars just where (R) knee and outer aspect (R) shoulder. 10. In the opinion of Dr. V.P. Dutt (P.W. 11) injury No. 2 was grievous. Injuries Nos. 1 to 9 were scalds caused by some chemical, and injuries Nos. 10 to 15 were caused by some blunt weapon. The examination of these injuries was done at 11.30 p.m. and their duration was within six hours. 11. Wali Mohammad accused was examined on 19-6-58 at 8.30 a.m. and following injuries were detected on his body. 1. Brownish black staining burn mark on the palm outer side of left forearm in an area of 51/2" 21/2" and 3" above the left wrist joint. 2. Brownish black staining burn mark 2" 1/4" on the dorsal side of left forearm in the middle. 3. Brownish black staining burn mark 1/3" 1/10" on the dorsal side of left forearm 11/2" below injury No. 2. 4. Brownish black staining burn mark with cuticle peeled off 1" 1/4" on the dorsal side of left forearm 1" above injury No. B2. 5. Brownish black staining burn mark 1" 3/4" on the dorsal under part of right forearm 3" above the right wrist joint with scabbing. 6. Brownish black staining burn mark 1" 1/2" on the dorsal side of Rt. forearm 1" below injury No. 5 with scabbing. 7. Brownish black staining burn mark 11/2" 11/2" on the dorsal side of Rt. forearm 1/2" below injury No. 6 with scabbing. 8. Brownish black staining burn mark 1/4" X 1/4" on the palmer side of Rt. forearm 3" above the Rt. wrist joint. 9. Scattered brownish black staining burn mark in an area of 4" 3" on the medial side of Rt. arm. They are seven in numbers with sizes 1/10" each. 10. Brownish black staining barn mark 1/4" 1/10" on the medial side of left thigh in the middle. 11. Scattered 3 staining marks in front of right thigh lower portion in an area of 4" 3". 12. Ali Ahmad was also examined on the same day at 9.5. a.m. and his examination disclosed the following injuries: 1. 10. Brownish black staining barn mark 1/4" 1/10" on the medial side of left thigh in the middle. 11. Scattered 3 staining marks in front of right thigh lower portion in an area of 4" 3". 12. Ali Ahmad was also examined on the same day at 9.5. a.m. and his examination disclosed the following injuries: 1. Yellowish brown staining mark on the palmer side of right arm and palmer side of fingers of right hand below the crease line involving index, middle ring and little finger. 2. Yellowish staining burn mars on the distal phalynx of left thumb in palmer middle side in an area of 1" 3/4". 13. Dr. B.N. Saxena who examined both these accused persons was of opinion that these injuries could be caused by some acid, and the probable duration of these injuries was about five days. 14. All the Respondents pleaded not guilty, and alleged that the prosecution case was the outcome of enmity. Wali Mohammad and Ali Ahmad could not explain the existence of acid injuries on their bodies. In fact they denied their existence. 15. So far as the prosecution case relating to the enmity between Hakim Mukhtar Ahmad and the five Respondents is concerned, the details of this enmity are given by Hakim Mukhtar Ahmad himself who appeared as PW.1. He stated that Ghufran and his brother Hakim Yaqub bore a grudge with him. He also stated that a suit had been instituted against him by Akbar at the instance of Ghufran. Ghufran, Abdul Haq and Mukhtar helped Akbar in the prosecution of that case. Mukhtar and Abdul Haq appeared as witnesses in that case. That case was eventually decided in his favour in May, 1958. Further, one Khelawan had brought a suit against Ghufran. A relation of his, Hafiz Amir, appeared as a witness for Khelawan. Ghufran had asked him to stop Hafiz Amir from appearing as a witness, but he had refused him to do so Hakim Mukhtar also stated that the father of Ghufran was accused of having embezzled four or five thousand rupees in his capacity as the Manager of a religious school Ghufran wanted him to help his father. He had refused to do so. There appears to be no reason to discredit the above evidence of Hakim Mukhtar Ahmad. The existence of enmity was admitted by the accused themselves in their statements. He had refused to do so. There appears to be no reason to discredit the above evidence of Hakim Mukhtar Ahmad. The existence of enmity was admitted by the accused themselves in their statements. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents did not challenge this part of the evidence of Hakim Mukhtar Ahmad. It must, therefore, be taken that the prosecution have succeeded in proving their case that there was antecedent enmity between Hakim Mukhtar Ahmad on the one hand and the Respondents on the other. 16. So far as the actual incident is concerned, there are two witnesses produced on behalf of the prosecution to establish this part of the case. They are Hakim Mukhtar Ahmad PW.1 the victim of the offence and Izhar PW.2. Hakim Mukhtar Ahmad stated that on the evening in question he was returning from his dispensary at Kheta Sarai that he had Rs. 400/ - with him at the time as he had promised to lend the same to Qasim Ali; that he had withdrawn Rs. 100/ - from the Post Office to make up the said amount; that when he had reached near Bahraicha Nala he had seen Ghufran standing under a tree near the railway crossing; that when he had gone ahead and reached near Bahraicha Nala he had seen Mukhtar and Akbar running towards him with lathis. Subsequently, Wali Mohammad, Ali Ahmad and Abdul Haq joined these persons, and thereafter all of them belabored him, and felled him down on the ground. He further stated that Wali Mohammad had taken Rs. 400/ - from his front pocket, and had spilled acid on his eyes and body by taking a phial from the hands of Ali Ahmad, that he had crawled to Kewatan were Dhondai Kewat met him. His son came to Kewatan and took him to Mani Kalan hospital from where he was taken to the hospital at Jaunpur where his dying declaration was recorded. 17. The place of the incident has not been challenged on behalf of the Respondents before us. The statement of Hakim Mukhtar that he had promised to lend Qasim Ali Rs. 400/ - is corroborated by the statement of Qasim Ali who a appeared as P.W. 17. His further statement that he had withdrawn Rs. 100/ - on the very day for the purpose of making up this amount of Rs. The statement of Hakim Mukhtar that he had promised to lend Qasim Ali Rs. 400/ - is corroborated by the statement of Qasim Ali who a appeared as P.W. 17. His further statement that he had withdrawn Rs. 100/ - on the very day for the purpose of making up this amount of Rs. 400, which he wanted to lend to Qasim Ali P.W. 14 is also corroborated by the statement of Matlab Husain P.W. 20, Post Master Sub-Post Office at Kheta Sarai. Matlab Husain also produced in court the withdrawal from and the discharge certificate of the amount withdrawn. This would prove beyond any shadow of doubt that Hakim Mukhtar had withdrawn the said amount of Rs. 100/ -. His statement that he was beaten by a number of persons who were holding lathis is corroborated by the medical evidence which shows that he had at least six contusions on various parts of his body. His version that acid was thrown on his eyes, face and all over his body is borne out by the large number of burns which were discovered by the doctor on his body. His evidence, however, appears to have been completely discarded by the trial court. 18. The first ground given by the trial court is that the time of the incident given by him in the dying declaration and FIR was 8 or 8-15 P.M. In his statement in court, however, he stated that the time of the incident was about 7 or 7:15 p.m. Owing to this inconsistency, his evidence was considered to be unworthy of credit. It should, however, be remembered that there could not be absolute darkness at the time of the incident. The assailants had to pack out their victims. They had to throw him down on the ground. There must have been light at the time to enable to assailants to direct their blows on the body of the victim, and to prevent them from hitting each other. Light was also necessary to enable them to see that the acid falls on the eyes and body of the victim. If Hakim Mukhtar Ahmad wanted to concoct a case on this point it was very easy for him to say that he had a torch in the light of which he had recognised the victims. Light was also necessary to enable them to see that the acid falls on the eyes and body of the victim. If Hakim Mukhtar Ahmad wanted to concoct a case on this point it was very easy for him to say that he had a torch in the light of which he had recognised the victims. It should, also be remembered that the assailants were known to him very well, and it would not require much visibility to enable him to recognise his assailants. There is also no doubt that the assailants came in very close contact with him. They beat him, felled him down on the ground and pinned him there, making him helpless, and then sprinkled acid all over body. Under the circumstances, we have no doubt that there must have been enough visibility to enable Hakim Mukhtar Ahmad to see and recognise his assailants.... Further, being himself the victim of the assault, he would also be keen to see that the real culprits should be brought to book. 19. The second ground by the trial court for rejecting his evidence is that he could not have seen the assailants, because acid was thrown into his eyes. In our opinion, this ground is based on a misapprehension of the prosecution evidence. In giving this ground the trial court appears to have ignored the fact that acid was thrown on Hakim Mukhtar Ahmad only after he was surrounded, felled down and belabored by the assailants. He had, therefore, ample opportunity to see the assailants before the acid was thrown on him. 20. The third ground given by the trial court for doubting his version is that the report was not made at the police station, although the police station fell on his way when he was being taken from Mani Kalan to Jaunpur hospital. Abdul Samad, the son of Mukhtar Ahmad has said in his evidence that this was not done as his father was in great agony at the time, and he was anxious to afford medical evidence to him. This explanation appears to us to be quite cogent. It seems quite natural that the son would not like to tarry at the police station when his father was in such agony. Every body would be more keen to see that medical relief was afforded to the victim as soon as possible. This explanation appears to us to be quite cogent. It seems quite natural that the son would not like to tarry at the police station when his father was in such agony. Every body would be more keen to see that medical relief was afforded to the victim as soon as possible. Considering the intense agony that the victim must have been going through, he himself would not be in a fit condition to give a proper and correct account of event until his pain was revived by medical aid. 21. Although the grounds given by the trial court for completely discarding his evidence do not appear to be good ones, we are however, not inclined to base conviction on his solitary evidence, unless it receives material corroboration for another reason. He was present in court during the hearing of the appeal. We examined him and his evidence showed that, as a result of the brutal assault made on him, he had become mentally deficient, and was incapable of giving coherent answers to questions put to him. At the same time we noted that his demeanour appeared to be that of a truthful witness. 22. The second witness in support of the incident is Izhar (PW. 2). He stated that he was going from Mani Kalan to the station to catch the train when he saw this incident He had seen Akbar, Wali Mohammad. Ali Ahmad, Abdul Haq and Mukhtar assaulting Hakim Mukhtar Ahmad. On seeing the assault he ran to Mani Kalan to call Hakim Mukhtar's son, Abdul Samad. The statement of this witness is corroborated by the fact that Abdul Samad actually met his father at Kewatan, when Dhondhai was providing assistance to him Some one, therefore, must have carried the news to the village. It is, therefore, not difficult to believe his statement that he had seen the incident, and hid gone to give the news to Abdul Samad. About this witness the trial court has observed as follows: It has not been difficult to procure this witness due to his relationship with Hakim Mukhtar. On behalf of the State it is argued that again on this point the trial court has misapprehended the evidence. The Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents was unable to point out any evidence proving any relationship between Hakim Mukhtar and this witness. On behalf of the State it is argued that again on this point the trial court has misapprehended the evidence. The Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents was unable to point out any evidence proving any relationship between Hakim Mukhtar and this witness. This part of the judgment of the trial court is, therefore, based on a complete misapprehension of evidence and cannot be supported. 23. The second ground given by the trial court for disbelieving the statement of this witness is that his name is not found in the dying declaration. 24. It is to be remembered that Hakim Mukhtar was surrounded by his assailants at the time and was being beaten. It is, therefore, quite natural that he would not be able to see any person round himself. Immediately after that he was thrown on the ground and acid was thrown into his eyes more or less blinding him. Under the circumstances, we are of opinion that the trial court was not justified in doubting the testimony of this witness on the ground that the name of this witness was not mentioned in the dying declaration. In this part of its judgment the trial court has obviously overlooked the circumstances of the situation. It is, therefore, argued that the judgment of the trial court is perverse and unreasonable in this regard. We are of opinion that there is justification for this criticism, and there is force in the argument of the Learned Counsel for the State in this regard. 25. The third ground given by the trial court for discarding his evidence is that he is a chance witness. On behalf of the State it is argued that this witness stated that he was going to catch the train at the station. He was not cross-examined on this point. The place of the incident admittedly happened to be by the side of the road leading to the Station. Persons going on the road would therefore, be natural witnesses of the incident, and not chance witnesses. Reference in this connection is made on behalf of the State to a Bench case of this Court Sunaer and others v. State 1958 AWR (H.C.) 174. It is no doubt true that this witness was not cross examined on the question that he was going to the station to catch the train. Reference in this connection is made on behalf of the State to a Bench case of this Court Sunaer and others v. State 1958 AWR (H.C.) 174. It is no doubt true that this witness was not cross examined on the question that he was going to the station to catch the train. It is also true that the incident itself having taken place by the roadside, the wayfarers would be the only natural witnesses. The argument of the Learned Counsel for the State on this point also appears to have force. It would, there fore, not be justifiable to reject the evidence of this witness altogether on the ground that he was a chance witness. At the most it might be considered to be a reason for approaching his evidence with a certain amount of caution, and accepting it only if it is corroborated by any independent service. 26. Another witness, namely, Dhondhai P.W. 3 was produced to corroborate the statement of Mukhtar Ahmad. He stated that Hakim Mukhtar Ahmad met him at Kewatan, and had narrated the incident to him. There appears to me no sufficient reason to disbelieve him. He is, however, not an eye witness of the incident. 27. On behalf of the prosecution a number of other witnesses were produced to provide circumstantial evidence against Akbar, Wali Mohammad, All Ahmad, Abdul Haq and Ghufran. The purpose of this evidence appears to have been to indicate that Ghufran had associated with the Respondents and had planned this brutal attack. This evidence does appear to us to present certain improbable features. Having examined it, we are of opinion that it is not the type of evidence on which much reliance can be placed. The reasons for doubling this evidence are given by the trial court, we need not repeat the same. We would, therefore, prefer to ignore it. 28. We may now take up the circumstantial evidence. This consists of the medical evidence regarding the injuries on the victim and two of the accused viz. Wali Mohammad and Ali Ahmad. In our opinion, this is a very important feature of the case. In his earlier statement, viz dying declaration which Hakim Mukhtar Ahmad made as early as the 15th of June he stated that acid was thrown on him. This was corroborated by the medical evidence which showed existence of acid burns on his body. Wali Mohammad and Ali Ahmad. In our opinion, this is a very important feature of the case. In his earlier statement, viz dying declaration which Hakim Mukhtar Ahmad made as early as the 15th of June he stated that acid was thrown on him. This was corroborated by the medical evidence which showed existence of acid burns on his body. The prosecution case that Wali Mohammad had sprinkled acid all over the body of the victim by taking a phial from Ali Ahmad also finds striking corroboration from the discovery of a large number of acid burns on the body of Wali Mohammad and some acid burns on the body of Ali Ahmad. These two persons were examined on 19-6-1958. Both of then were found to have injuries caused by acid burns. The trial court, however, did not think that this evidence was of much value as it was not established in the present case that the acid burns of Hakim Mukhtar were caused by the same type of acid which was thrown on Hakim Mukhtar. This does not appear to be a good ground for minimising the valuable corroboration afforded by this evidence. 29. It is also significant to note that according to the statement of the doctor these acid burns were about five days old. The examination of these accused took place on the 19th of June. Five days before this incident would take us back to the 14th June, which was the date of the incident. The medical evidence can only give an approximate idea of the duration of the injuries. It may also be noted that the medical report also shows that some of the injuries appeared to have scabs. This would also indicate that they were not old injuries. This evidence, therefore, provides a strong corroboration of the prosecution case. 30. We shall now take up the case of each of the Respondents individually. 1. Ghufran. 31. The case against this Respondent does not appear to be free from doubt. His name is not mentioned in the first information report or in the eying declaration. The circumstantial evidence against this Respondent has not been considered by us to be worthy of reliance. We are, therefore, of opinion that he was rightly acquitted by the trial court. 2. Akbar and 3. Abdul Haq. 32. His name is not mentioned in the first information report or in the eying declaration. The circumstantial evidence against this Respondent has not been considered by us to be worthy of reliance. We are, therefore, of opinion that he was rightly acquitted by the trial court. 2. Akbar and 3. Abdul Haq. 32. Against these two Respondents the main evidence consists of the evidence of Hakim Mukhtar and Izhar. We have held that the evidence of these to witnesses is not enough to justify conviction without any further corroborative evidence. We would, therefore, give these Respondents also the benefit of the doubt and hold that they were rightly acquitted. 4. Ali Ahmad, 33. Against this Respondent there is the evidence of Hakim Mukhtar, Izhar and also the medical evidence of acid burns. In view of the corroboration provided by the medical evidence, we would have convicted him but some doubt has been created in his favour by the dying declaration. The dying declaration of Hakim Mukhtar shows that the victim was not quite certain about the presence of this Respondent. This Respondent has not been mentioned in it by name. According to the dying declaration of Hakim Mukhtar, he suspected one son of Akbar to be present. No doubt he is the son of Akbar. However, in view of the fact that he has not been specifically named in the dying declaration by Hakim Mukhtar himself, we would give him the benefit of the doubt. 5. Wali Mohammad 34. So far as this Respondent is concerned, Hakim Mukhtar has not expressed any doubt about his presence at any stage. The evidence against him is consistent and clear at all stages. In our opinion, the case against him has been proved beyond any shadow of doubt by the following circumstances: 1. The evidence of Mukhtar Ahmad the victim of the incident. 2. The evidence of Izhar P.W. 2, an eye-witness of the incident who also mentioned his name. 3. Dhondhai P.W. 3 who stated that Mukhtar Ahmad had mentioned his name to him. 4. His name is clearly mentioned in the dying declaration as well as in the FIR as one of the assailants. 5. This Respondent has also been assigned a specific part in the incident. It is said about him that he is the person who snatched the amount of Rs. 4. His name is clearly mentioned in the dying declaration as well as in the FIR as one of the assailants. 5. This Respondent has also been assigned a specific part in the incident. It is said about him that he is the person who snatched the amount of Rs. 400/ - from Hakim Mukhtar Ahmad, and freely threw acid at him so as to cause a large number of acid injuries on the victim. The part assigned to this accused finds striking corroboration from the discovery of a large number of acid burns on his body by the doctor. According to the doctor these acid burns were 5 days old. Hakim Mukhtar stated before us that Wali Mohammad's act in throwing acid on him could never be forgotten by him, as it had caused him intense pain. This part of his evidence impressed us favourably, and we have no hesitation in placing implicit reliance on it, since it finds corroboration from the medical evidence. Further, Hakim Mukhtar's version is that he was thrown down on the ground. He must, therefore, be trying to struggle with a view to ward off the acid. This accounts for the large number of acid burns on the body of Wali Mohammad. 6. That fact that this Respondent was absolutely unable to give any explanation of the acid burns on him. On the other hand, he falsely denied this existence. The presence of a large number of acid injuries on his body, and his false statement in court to the effect that he did not have any of these injuries coupled with the other evidence establishes beyond doubt that this Respondent was, at any rate, one of the accused persons who was responsible for this offence. 7. It may also be mentioned that Wali Mohammad is one of the persons who had absconded and who had not surrendered until proceedings u/s s. 87 and 88 were taken against him. 35. We may state that we have no doubt in our mind that there were a number of other persons along with Wali Mohammad, who had participated in this incident. This would be borne out by the fact that there are not only acid burns on the body of Hakim Mukhtar, but also a number of contusions which could be caused by a blunt weapon like a lathi. This would be borne out by the fact that there are not only acid burns on the body of Hakim Mukhtar, but also a number of contusions which could be caused by a blunt weapon like a lathi. There are also grounds for thinking that Akbar, Ali Ahmad and Abdul Haq are the other persons who were present on the spot, and had participated in this assault. We have, however, given them the benefit of doubt for two reasons. In the first place, the prosecution evidence against them is not of a such a clinching type as that against Wali Mohammad. Secondly, we are conscious of the fact that we are dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal. Unless, therefore, compelling reasons are made out for interference, we are not inclined to allow the appeal. Such compelling reasons, in our opinion, do exist so for as Wali Mohammad is concerned. 36. Our attention on behalf of the State has also been drawn to a number of mistakes committed by the trial court in its judgment We have already pointed out that the trial court has wrongly mentioned in the judgment that Izhar is a relation of Hakim Mukhtar. It has also wrongly mentioned in the judgment that Rashid another witness is also a relation of Hakim Mukhtar. A number of mis-statements and other mistakes in the judgment of the trial court were brought to our notice. These and other features pointed out by as about indicate that the trial court did not dissect the evidence properly. It not only ignored certain important circumstances but also misapprehended evidence. It has therefore, not made a correct approach to the matter. 37. On behalf of the Respondents it was argued before us that in view of a number of weaknesses in the prosecution case, the whole prosecution case should be thrown out as false. We are not prepared to do so. In our opinion, the court should try to sift truth from falsehood. It is possible to accept the prosecution case in respect of some of the accused while rejecting it in respect of others. In most criminal cases it is not possible to say that the entire prosecution evidence is correct in every detail. In such a situation the court would be shirking its responsibility if it did not make an attempt to sift the grain from the chaff. In most criminal cases it is not possible to say that the entire prosecution evidence is correct in every detail. In such a situation the court would be shirking its responsibility if it did not make an attempt to sift the grain from the chaff. In this connection reference might be made to the following observation of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Abdul Gani and Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 31 It is true that in the present state of the record the story given by the eye witnesses has to be carefully scrutinised and unless it can be said with reasonable certainty that a certain person took part in the riot the benefit of doubt has to be given to him. The learned Sessions Judge was undoubtedly in error when he said that it was impossible to find out from the state of the prosecution evidence with any amount of certainty who among the accused persons participated in the offence and that it would be a pure gamble to convict any of the accused. He made no effort to disengage the truth from the "falsehood, and to sift the grain from the chaff but took an easy course, and after holding the evidence discrepant held that the whole case was untrue. 38. The above observation have a bearing in the present case. We are of opinion that in the present case, after sifting the truth from the falsehood, and, giving the utmost benefit to the accused, the prosecution case stands proved beyond any shadow of doubt so far as Wali Mohammad Respondent No. 5 is concerned. On behalf of Wali Mohammad it is argued that the evidence against him is the same as that against other Respondents. We are unable to accept this submission. We have already pointed out the special peculiarity to his case. His case, therefore, stands on a special footing distinct from that of others. 39. On the question of sentence we may observe that this was a gruesome attack made in a most callous fashion on an unarmed person. The victim completely lost one of his eyes, and his body has been disfigured for life. His brain appears also to have been severely damaged. He was also deprived of Rs. 400/. The attack was launched on him for base and revengeful motives. The victim completely lost one of his eyes, and his body has been disfigured for life. His brain appears also to have been severely damaged. He was also deprived of Rs. 400/. The attack was launched on him for base and revengeful motives. A determent sentence is, therefore, called for in the present case. We would, therefore, set aside the acquittal of Wali Mohammad and convict him u/s s. 392 and 326 IPC. u/s 392 we sentence him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years; and, u/s 325 IPC, we sentence him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of eight years. The sentence of ten years' rigorous imprisonment passed u/s 392 IPC and of eight years' u/s 326 IPC shall run concurrently. 40. The net result of the findings given by us is that this Government Appeal is dismissed so far as Akbar, Ali Ahmad, Abdul Haq and Ghufran are concerned but allowed so far as Wali Mohammad is concerned. Wali Mohammad is on bail. He shall surrender forthwith and undergo the sentence of imprisonment passed to him above.