JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition by the petitioner has been directed against the judgment dated March 3, 1972 of the learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara in Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 1972, confirming the conviction of the petitioner under S. 326 I.P.C. as well as the sentence of two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- imposed by the Asstt. Sessions Judge, Bhilwara. 2. Farsely speaking, shorn of all unnecessary details the prosecution story as disclosed at the trial is that on June 27, 1971 nearly at 10-30 p.m. the accused-petitioner Ramesh Chander in the company of Suresh Chander (acquitted by the Sessions Judge, Bhilwara) went to the house of PW 3 Sarswati. At that time the accused petitioner Ramesh Chander had a bottle of acid in his hand. He found PW 5 Mohan lying in the verandah. The prosecution case is that at the relevant time PW 2 Methi was sitting beside PW 5 Mohan and PW 3 Sarswati had gone inside the room to fetch meals for PW 5 Mohan. The accused petitioner Ramesh Chander started pouring acid from the bottle on the face of PW 5 Mohan as a result of which he shrieked in pain, hearing which PW 3 Mst. Sarswati rushed to the place where accused petitioner Ramesh Chander was pouring acid from the bottle on PW 5 Mohan. It is alleged that set the time when Ramesh Chander was pouring acid from his bottle, the other accused Suresh Chander was standing nearby on a bicycle. Hearing the commotion a large number of persons gathered and both the accused persons ran away riding on the bicycle. PW 5 Mohan was sent to the hospital for treatment and PW 3 Mst. Sarswati lodged a first information report of the occurrence at the Police Station, Bhilwara at 12-55 a.m. on June 28, 1971, which was reduced into writing and has been marked Ex. P. 1. PW 5 Mohan was clinically examined by Dr. Amritlal. He noticed the following injuries on his person : The injury report is Ex. P. 2. (1) Abrasion 1/2" x ⅛" on the base of the nose transversely. (2) Abrasion 3/4" x ⅙" on the left eye-brow obliquely. (3) Complain of pain chest on the left lateral side in the middle with ' tenderness and crepitations with slight swelling. Amritlal. He noticed the following injuries on his person : The injury report is Ex. P. 2. (1) Abrasion 1/2" x ⅛" on the base of the nose transversely. (2) Abrasion 3/4" x ⅙" on the left eye-brow obliquely. (3) Complain of pain chest on the left lateral side in the middle with ' tenderness and crepitations with slight swelling. (4) Acid burn dark brown in colour present on the following parts:- (1) On the face except upper half forehead and half of the left ear. (2) Neck complete. (3) Chest in front upto areola on the left side upto epigastrium on the right side and right lateral side upto seventh rib. (4) Four inches x two inches area on the lower half of the right upper arm in front. (5) Dorsal half and ventral one fourth of right fore-arm. (6) Front of left upper arm ventral full and dorsal upper half of the left fore-arm. (7) Shoulder posteriorly upto the both spine of the scapula. (8) One line ⅜" thick on the back over the vertriberal column from neck to limb sacral joint. (9) Both cornea and conjecture of left eye and right eye burrs with acid with blindness. 3. The accused persons were arrested on July 3, 1971. In pursuance of the information given by the accused-petitioner Ramesh Chander a bottle was seized but there is nothing on the record to hold that it contained acid and as such this recovery is of no assistance to the prosecution in connecting the accused petitioner Ramesh Chander with the crime. The Police after usual investigation submitted a challan against Ramesh Chander and Suresh Chander (acquitted by the Sessions Judge, Bhilwara) in the Court of Munsiff-Magistrate, Bhilwara who committed both the accused to the Court of Sessions Judge, Bhilwara. The accused were ultimately tried by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhilwara, who by his' judgement dated January 21, 1972, convicted them under S. 326 I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- ; in default of the payment of which to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. The convicted accused preferred an appeal in the Court of Sessions Judge, Bhilwara. The learned Sessions Judge accepted the appeal of accused Suresh Chander and acquitted him of all the charges framed against him. 1000/- ; in default of the payment of which to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. The convicted accused preferred an appeal in the Court of Sessions Judge, Bhilwara. The learned Sessions Judge accepted the appeal of accused Suresh Chander and acquitted him of all the charges framed against him. However, he maintained the conviction and sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner Ramesh Chander under S. 326, I.P.C., by the trial court, 4. Aggrieved with that judgement the convicted accused petitioner Ramesh Chander has challenged his conviction and sentence by this revision petition. This revision petition raises the question regarding the evidentiary value of a statement brought on the record of the trial court under S 288, Cr. P.C. 5. From the statements of the prosecution witnesses and the statement of Dr. Amrit Lal it stands proved beyond any manner of doubt that PW 5 Mohan sustained acid, burns on the date and place as alleged by the prosecution. 6. The motive as alleged by the prosecution was that there was a long standing quarrel between Mst. Hagami and PW 5 Mohan. Hagami was in parlance with Nimbodiya father of accused Ramesh Chander. The immediate cause of the quarrel as alleged by the prosecution was a scuffle between PW 5 Mohan on the one hand and Ramesh Chander and one of his friends on the other on June 27, 1971 in which PW 5 Mohan sustained injury resulting in the fracture of bis left 9th rib. It is alleged that PW 5 Mohan gave a first information report Ex. P. 7 of that occurrence at the Police Station, Bhilwara and thereafter came to the house of PW 3 Sarswati. It appears that the accused got scent of this information as a result of which they got infuriated and both of them came to the house of PW 3 Mst Sarswati to teach him a lesson for lodging a complaint Ex. P, 7 before the Police against them. 7. From the statement of PW 3 Mst. Sarswati and PW 5 Mohan corroborated by the first information report exhibit P. 1 the prosecution case regarding motive for the commission of the crime stands proved. Proof of motive in a case is one of the important links to satisfy the judicial mind about the likelihood of the authorship of the crime. 8. I have heard Mr. Sarswati and PW 5 Mohan corroborated by the first information report exhibit P. 1 the prosecution case regarding motive for the commission of the crime stands proved. Proof of motive in a case is one of the important links to satisfy the judicial mind about the likelihood of the authorship of the crime. 8. I have heard Mr. Tikku on behalf of the accused-petitioner and Mr. M. C. Bhati, Deputy Government Advocate on behalf of the State. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the trial court and the appellate court erred in treating the statements of PW 3 Sarswati and PW 5 Mohan recorded by the committing court and brought on the record of the trial court under S 288, Cr. P.C., as substantive evidence, and has further erred in basing the conviction on the testimony of hostile witnesses, who had given conflicting versions, especially when there was no independent evidence to corroborate their evidence given in the committing court. 9. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the relevant record, I find that the case against the accused petitioner Ramesh Chander rests on the direct evidence of PW 3 Mst. Sarswati. PW 5 Mohan, PW 4 Jagdish and the corroborative evidence of Dr. Amrit Lal and the first information report Ex. P. 1. Out of the four eye-witnesses relied upon by the prosecution PW 5 Mohan is the injured person and PW 3 Mst. Sarswati is the owner of the house where Mohan injured was lying at the time of the assault. Though their presence, on the scene of occurrence cannot be denied but both these witnesses turned a volte face at the trial, and resiled from their statements recorded at the stage of commitment. The prosecution had to declare them as hostile witnesses. Their earlier statements were brought on the record of the trial court under S. 288, Cr. P.C. PW 2 Methi narrated the entire happening but obliged the petitioner by creating a doubt about the presence of the accused on the scene of occurrence. She stated that she could not recognise the assailant. PW 4 Jagdish also did not support the prosecution. 10. PW 3 Sarswati in her statement before the trial court stated that accused Ramesh Chander was known to her and he used to reside in her vicinity. She stated that she could not recognise the assailant. PW 4 Jagdish also did not support the prosecution. 10. PW 3 Sarswati in her statement before the trial court stated that accused Ramesh Chander was known to her and he used to reside in her vicinity. PW 5 Mohan injured used to reside in her house at the relevant time. Nearly 5 or 6 months before the occurrence Hagami, her niece came to PW 5 Mohan and threatened to take a revenge against him. PW 5 Mohan took the threat very lightly and asked her to go away, and further teased her by saying that she should not be proud of her youth as it is not to last long The witness further goes on to state that at that time the petitioner Ramesh Chander and Suresh co-accused (since acquitted) were with her at that time. Ramesh Chander inflicted injuries on the person of PW 5 Mohan with a torch and Suresh indicted blows with fists and kicks. On her intervention they fled away. Two days thereafter _at 6 p.m. when she was coming from her field, she found a number of persons collected near the bungalow of Superintendent of Police. On enquiry, she was informed that Ramesh Chander and Suresh Chander had given a beating to PW 5 Mohan as a result of which his rib waibroken and blood had cozed out of the injury on the head. The witness further goes on to state that she went to the house of accused petitioner Ramesh Chander to repremand him. PW 5 Mohan and others also accompanied her. Thereafter PW 6 Ramdeo and PW 5 Mohan went to the Police Station for lodging a first information report Ex. P. 7 of the occurrence and the witness came to her house. By the time PW 5 Mohan also returned after getting the wound bandaged. He was made to lie down on a carpet in the verandah. PW 2 Methi sat near PW 5 Mohan. After some time PW 3 Sarswati went inside the house to bring meals for PW 5 Mohan. At the time when she was just putting the vegetable in the plate, she heard the shrieks of PW 5 Mohan. She rushed out of the room and saw a man pouring some thing from the bottle on PW 5 Mohan. After some time PW 3 Sarswati went inside the house to bring meals for PW 5 Mohan. At the time when she was just putting the vegetable in the plate, she heard the shrieks of PW 5 Mohan. She rushed out of the room and saw a man pouring some thing from the bottle on PW 5 Mohan. The man who was pouring some thing from the bottle resembled the accused petitioner Ramesh Chander. She observed PW 5 Mohan grappling with the accused-petitioner Ramesh Chander. The other man who was standing near the bicycle resembled Suresh Chander. The witness .further goes on to state that PW 5 Mohan also told her that the persons, who inflicted injuries were Ramesh Chander and Suresh Chander. After pouring acid both the persons went away riding on their bicycle. The witness further goes on to state that by the time PW 5 Mohan was taken to the hospital she went to the Police Station and lodged the first information report Ex. P. 1, which bears the signatures. She was allowed to be cross-examined by the prosecution as the witness was declared hostile. The statements of this witness in the committing court and the trial court are practically on the same lines. No doubt she watered down her statement in the trial court by stating that the person who poured acid on the person of PW 5 Mohan resembled Ramesh Chander whereas in her statement before the committing court she categorically stated that Ramesh Chander poured down the acid on PW 5Mohan. As already mentioned above, she was declared a hostile witness, her statement recorded in the committing court was brought on the record of the trial court under S. 288, Cr. P.C. She was confronted with her previous statement and she admitted in the cross-examination that in the Police she had stated that the accused-petitioner Ramesh Chander had poured , acid on the person of PW 5 Mohan. She further admitted that she had made a statement against Ramesh Chander in the committing court and stated that a bottle was in the hand of Ramesh Chander from which he was pouring some thing like water on the person of PW 5 Mohan, but the witness again turned a volts face and stated that her statement in the committing court was not a correct one, whereas her statement before the trial court was correct. She further stated on cross-examination by the accused that PW 5 Mohan had given to her the names of the accused on the next day of the occurrence. Thus she had tried to supress truth and hold back the correct information, from the court. PW 3 Sarswati, in the first information report Ex. P. 1, given immediately after the incident (within an hour and twenty five minutes) had categorically stated that she saw accused Ramesh Chander pouring acid on PW 5 Mohan. The discrepancies appearing in her statement before the committing court have also been considered by me. They are not such as to affect the truth of the witness regarding the material facts relating to the incident. I do not want to cover the ground over again excepting say that the statement of PW 3 Sarswati recorded by the committing court is true and reliable. It gets extrinsic support from the first information report Ex. P. 1 and the injury report and the evidence of motive given in the case. 11. Then we have the evidence of PW 5 Mohan. He is the injured person. He in his statement recorded by the trial court exonerated both Ramesh Chander (accused-petitioner) and the co-accused Suresh Chander (acquitted by the appellate court). He narrated the entire incident but regarding the identity of the assailant, he made volts face and stated that he could not identify the assailant. He was declared hostile. His statement recorded in the committing court was brought on the record of the trial court under S. 288, Cr. P.C., and was marked Ex. P. 3. He was confronted with various portions of his statement recorded in the committing court. Instead of explaining the contradictions he stated that he did not make such a statement. There is sufficient evidence on the record that the accused Ramesh Chander and the witness were known to each other for a pretty long time and they were the residents of the same locality. Just prior to the occurrence, out of which the present revision petition arise there had been another scuffle between the parties. The first information report Ex. P. 7 of that occurrence reveals that the witness very well knew the accused petitioner by name. Just prior to the occurrence, out of which the present revision petition arise there had been another scuffle between the parties. The first information report Ex. P. 7 of that occurrence reveals that the witness very well knew the accused petitioner by name. Thus there are circumstances on the record to hold that the evidence given by this witness in the committing court is true and the subsequent statement made by the witness at the trial was due to circumstances on account of which the witness was not prepared to tell the truth. S. 288 Cr. P.C. is intended to provide for the contingency that may arise when a witness who is produced before the trial court holds back the information and evidence, and tells a different story from that which he gave in the preliminary enquiry before the Magistrate. 12. Thus admittedly both these witnesses PW 3 Mst. Sarswati and PW 3 Mohan have made two contradictory statements on oath. It is plainly unsafe to place implicit reliance on their evidence. I shall be relying upon their statements to the extent they stand supported by extrinsic and reliable evidence. In Sharnappa v. State of Maharashtra (1) their Lordships of the Supreme Court have observed as under:- "Where a person has made two contradictory statements on oath it is plainly unsafe to rely implicitly on his evidence. In other words, before one decides to accept the evidence brought in under S. 288 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as true and reliable one has to be satisfied that this is really so. How can that satisfaction be reached ? In most cases this satisfaction can come only if there is such support in extrinsic evidence as to give a reasonable indication that not only what is said about the occurrence in general but also what is said against the particular accused sought to be implicated in the crime is true. How can that satisfaction be reached ? In most cases this satisfaction can come only if there is such support in extrinsic evidence as to give a reasonable indication that not only what is said about the occurrence in general but also what is said against the particular accused sought to be implicated in the crime is true. If there be a case and there is such infinite variety in facts and circumstances of the cases coming before the courts that it cannot be dogmatically said that there can never be such a case...where even without such extrinsic support the Judge of facts, after bearing in mind the intrinsic weakness of the evidence, in that two different statements on oath have been made, is satisfied that the evidence is true, and can be safely relied upon, the Judge will be failing in his duty not to do so. In the case on hand PW 3 Mst. Sarswati and PW 5 Mohan had in their depositions in the committing court have given a detailed account of not only of the occurrence out of which the present revision arises, but have also described in detail the two other previous incidents. The first information report Ex. P. 1 of the case on hand was lodged within a short time. The first information report is a detailed one. The names of the witnesses and the part played by the accused petitioner Ramesh Chander have been mentioned therein, in sufficient details. It has also been mentioned that he caused acid burn injuries to PW 5 Mohan. The lodging of the first information report within a short time of the occurrence lends considerable support to the prosecution story and the ocular evidence of PW 3 Mst. Sarswati stands corroborated in material particulars by the first information report. She is the owner of the house where PW 5 Mohan was lying at the time of the occurrence and her presence on the scene of occurrence cannot be doubted as it was most natural. Her statement further stands corroborated by the statement of PW 5 Mohan recorded in the committing court, and marked as Ex, P. 3. Her statement gets general support by the statements of PW 2 Methi and PW 1 Shanti, who have narrated the entire story, though they have categorically stated that they could not identify the assailants. Her statement further stands corroborated by the statement of PW 5 Mohan recorded in the committing court, and marked as Ex, P. 3. Her statement gets general support by the statements of PW 2 Methi and PW 1 Shanti, who have narrated the entire story, though they have categorically stated that they could not identify the assailants. Her statement further stands corroborated by the statement of PW 4 Amrit Lal and the injury report of PW 5 Mohan, Ex. P. 2. The learned counsel for the accused-petitioner Ramesh Chander urged that though she named the accused-petitioner in. the first information report but she did not name him in her statement recorded under S. 164 Cr. P.C. The witness was confronted with this omission. A perusal of the statement shows that instead of naming Ramesh Chander she has named him as "son of Nimbodiya Sahib". Admittedly, the accused-petitioner Ramesh Chander is the son of Shanker Lal Nimbodiya. There is nothing unnatural in the witness naming the boy by his father's name at the time when she made the statement under S. 164, Cr, P.C. The witness and the accused are the residents of the same locality. They were known to each other. In the first information report Ex. P. 1 which was given by PW 3 Sarswati within a short time of the occurrence, viz., one hour and 25 minutes, the name of the accused-petitioner Ramesh Chander has been mentioned, and as such there is nothing to hold that the accused-petitioner was not identified by the witness on the scene of occurrence. The two courts below, after scanning the evidence in detail have arrived at a concurrent finding of tact in regard to the guilt of the accused-petitioner. 13. For the reasons mentioned above, I hold that PW 3 Mst. Sarswati had made a true and correct statement in the committing court and her statement stands sufficiently corroborated in material particulars as mentioned above. The jurisdiction of this Court in criminal revision petition is severely restricted and it cannot embark upon a re-appreciation of evidence. The High Court in revisional jurisdiction exercises supervisory powers of a restricted nature and therefore it was not necessary for me to re-appreciate the evidence for the purpose of determining whether the concurrent finding of fact reached by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions Judge were correct or not. The High Court in revisional jurisdiction exercises supervisory powers of a restricted nature and therefore it was not necessary for me to re-appreciate the evidence for the purpose of determining whether the concurrent finding of fact reached by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions Judge were correct or not. I have reviewed the evidence for the purpose of satisfying myself that there was evidence in support of the finding of fact raised by two subordinate courts and that the finding of fact arrived at is not unreasonable or perverse. I find no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner that it is a case of total lack of legal reliable evidence. I hold that the guilt has been brought home to the accused petitioner. 14. Now remains the vexing question of sentence. The true purpose of penal treatment is to take into consideration the social defence, redemption of the convict from the life of crime, satisfaction of the victim and the community that justice has been done in the case. The accused was a young lad, 18 years of age, on the date of the commission of the offence. He was 19 years of age on the date of his conviction by the trial court. There is no controversy between the parties that he has remained in custody for a period of eight months and 15 days. The proceedings have lasted for more than five years which means that the petitioner must have incurred considerable expenditure in this litigation. This long ordeal itself is deterrent enough to inhibit repetition of such offence. The offence appears to have been committed at the behest of Hangami an elderly lady. He is a student, who wants to continue his studies further. Penalties designed to deter crime should be gauged so far as possible to the degree of social danger that is represented by the crime and its repetition. 15. To send the petitioner back to jail to serve the remaining period of sentence will not be in the interest of justice. It is unlikely to have any reformative effect on him. His further stay in jail may attract him towards a life of crime instead of reforming him. 15. To send the petitioner back to jail to serve the remaining period of sentence will not be in the interest of justice. It is unlikely to have any reformative effect on him. His further stay in jail may attract him towards a life of crime instead of reforming him. This would clearly do him more harm than good, and for that reason it would perhaps also be to an extent prejudicial to the larger interest of the society as a whole. 16. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and age of the accused, I think it would subserve the interest of justice, if the sentence imposed on the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him and in lieu of rejection of the sentence of imprisonment the sentence of fine is enhanced to Rs. 2500/- so that out of the fine the injured PW 5 Mohan may be suitably compensated. 17. This revision petition is partly allowed. The substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to the accused petitioner Ramesh Chander by the trial court is reduced to the period already undergone, but the sentence of fine is raised from Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 2500/- (Rupees Two Thousand, Five Hundred). Out of the fine realised a sum of Rs. 1500/- shall be paid to the injured PW 5 Mohan in the presence of the Presiding Officer of the trial court. The accused-petitioner is allowed three months' time from to-day to deposit, in the trial court, the amount of fine imposed by this court. In case of the default of payment of fine, this revision petition shall stand dismissed, and the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhilwara shall get the accused-petitioner arrested and send him to jail to serve out the remaining term of sentence awarded by the trial court. In the event of deposit of fine the bail bonds shall stand cancelled. *******