Judgment N.S.Rao, J. 1. Ashok; Kumar, resident of Bara Bazar, Hazaribagh, the appellant, stands convicted under Sec. 326 of Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years, and a fine of Rs. 1000 (rupees one thousand) or in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. Feeling aggrieved, he has preferred this appeal. 2. The outer gate of the Government Girls High School, Hazaribagh, was the scene of a ghastly crime on 28-7-1977 at about 9.15 a.m. when concentrated nitric acid was thrown on the face, cheat, etc. of Indu Sinha. She was then a student of X class in that school and was entering its premises for taking final supplements examinations. According to the prosecution, Ashok Kumar appellant was the culprit responsible for committing that tragic crime upon Indu Sinha. Shortly, earlier she had come in a car bearing registration No. B.R.M. 636 of Shri Narbdeshwar Singh, with her father Shri Madan Mohan Singh P. W., then serving as Co-operative Extension Officer, Hazaribagh, and Gulzar Ahmad P. W. After Indu Sinha was made the victim of the crime, she had raised shrieks, which had attracted the attention of Narbdeshwar Singh, Madan Mohan Singh and Gulzar Ahmed P. Ws. and for that matter many others, then present nearby. Immediately after throwing acid, the appellant had started running towards the Forest Colony, Hazaribagh. His friend. Bholanath, since acquitted, was already present at a small distance with his cycle The appellant and Bhola Nath had tried to escape on the letters cycle. However, Madan Mohan Singh, Narbdeshwar Singh and Gulzar Ahmad P. Ws. had given them a chase in their car. They had been able to apprehend the appellant within the premises of the Forest Colony, Hazaribagh, but his friend Bholanath had managed to dispappear. The appellant had been brought in that car to the place of the occurrence. In the way. the appellant had confessed before Narbdeshwer Singh, Madan Mohan Singh and Gulzar Ahmad P. Ws. about his throwing Nitric acid on the face and other vulnerable parts of the body of Indu Sinha, On reaching the spot, Madan Mohan Singh P. W. had found thai his daughter Indu Sinha had earlier been removed to Sadar Hospital Hazaribagh, for treatment. S.I. Lalit Kumar P. W. along with his force had already reached there on getting a telephonic message about commission of the crime. S.I. Lalit Kumar P. W. along with his force had already reached there on getting a telephonic message about commission of the crime. He had entrusted the custody of the appellant to Balram Kujur and Ram Singh AS1S, and himself had rushed with Madan Mohan Singh P. W. to the Hospital Indu Sinha was found getting treatment there Madan Mohan Singh P. W. had drafted his report Ext. 2 and presented the name before S.I. Laiit Kumar. P. W That statement was sent to the police station, whereupon, formal F.I.R. was drawn up. During investigations, it was found that the appellant had purchased the acid from Hind Stores, Hazaribagh through his friend, Shivpujan Kumar P. W. His statement was recorded. From the place of occurrence, a plastic can and a handkerchief still smelling of nitric acid, were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ext, 1 attested by Arun Kumar Pilani P. W. After completion of the investigations, the appellant and his alleged co-culprit Bholanath were charge-sheeted. However, the latter has earned acquittal from the trial court. 3. Out of twelve witnesses examined by the prosecution, Shiv Pujan Kumar P. W. 1 had helped the appellant in purchasing the acid. Arun Kumar Pilani P. W. 2 had attested the seizure memo, Ext. I indu Sinha P. W. 3 is the unfortunate victim. Gulzar Ahmad P. W, 4 and Madan Mohan Singh. P. W. 5 are the eye-witnesses of the occurrence. The evidence of Chandra Prakash Sahay P. W. 6 and Baijnath Sahay P. W. 7 is formal in nature. They had proved the signatures of the scribe on the formal F. I. R. Shri Lakshmi Prasad P. W. 8 is the Judicial Magistrate, who had recorded statement under Sec. 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Shiv Pujan Kumar P. W. 1. Inspector William Kundu P. W. 10 had registered the case, Shri A.P. Roy P. W. 12 is another Judicial Magistrate, who had conducted the test-identification parade with respect to Bholunath. Sub-Inspector Lalit Kumar P. W. 11 is the investigating officer of the cage. Dr. Inspector William Kundu P. W. 10 had registered the case, Shri A.P. Roy P. W. 12 is another Judicial Magistrate, who had conducted the test-identification parade with respect to Bholunath. Sub-Inspector Lalit Kumar P. W. 11 is the investigating officer of the cage. Dr. Kameshdwar Prasad P. 9 then posted in Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh had conducted medical examination of Indu Sinha P. W. on 28-7- 1977 at 9.30 a.m. and had found the following: Burn injuries of whole of right side of face, both sides of need, front of chest in the middle, right breast around areola and nipple ; on both of whole of left hand, right palm, right chest, and lower part of dorsum of right fore-arm, right ear, on all sides of right shoulder and back below the neck. The palm and skin over the burnt area had turned yellow in colour. Hair on the right side of scalp were bathed in liquid substance, turning the hair to yellowish colour with smell of acid. On subsequent examinations in the hospital on 5-8-1977, deep bums were found over face, shoulder, neck, right ear and front of chest. The injuries were caused by strong corrosive liquid substance, acid in nature. The injuries were grievous and these were received within half an hour of the initial medical examination. Ext. 7 is the injury report. 4. The appellant, in his examination, had denied the prosecution allegations, and stated that he was innocent. He had not put forward any specific plea. Out of two witnesses examined in defence, the evidence of Deep Narain Prasad D. W. 1 is not material for the decision of this case, inasmuch as it pertains to the acquitted accused. Sunil Kumar D. W. 2 is the first cousin of Ashok Kumar appellant He had deposed about the some beating given by appellant to the P. W. 1, earlier to the occurrence, when he had committed theft of a which of his brother-in-law. Tapas, which was subsequently returned. 5. After hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant, and the learned Additional P. P. appearing for the State, as also going through the record, I am of the considered view that as the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the appellant, beyond all shadow of doubt, this appeal has to fail. 6. From the evidence of Dr. 5. After hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant, and the learned Additional P. P. appearing for the State, as also going through the record, I am of the considered view that as the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the appellant, beyond all shadow of doubt, this appeal has to fail. 6. From the evidence of Dr. Kameshawar Prasad P. W. it stands fully established that concentrated Nitric acid was voluntarily thrown on the face and other sensitive parts of the body of Indu Sinha by the side of her School in Hazaribagh at about 9.15 a.m. on 28-7-1977, The evidence of Indu Sinha, Gulzar Ahmad and Madan Mohan Singh P. Ws. all eye witnesses, in this behalf has practically gone unchallenged. Indu Sinha and Madan Mohan Singh P. W. 8 have further sworn that the former had remained as an indoor patient in Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh for 25 days, and subsequently in Medical College Hospital at Patna, for the two months each on three different duration in connection with her treatment. The note of the trial court appears in the evidence of Indu Sinha P. W. that when she was examined as a witness on 28.9-1983, she was still having innumerable acid mark on her face, and she and her father Madan Mohan Singh P. W. had deposed, and there is no challenge to their testimony that Indu Sinha had not still been cured, and her treatment was going on under the expert supervision of Or. R. C. Sinha, Head of the Department of Plastic Surgery, Medical College, Patna. Undoubtedly, Indu Sinha was made the victim of an inhuman tragic crime. The only question for determination is to see as to if satifactory evidence is available on record for establishing that it was the appellant who had made her that pitiable condition. 7. The success of the prosecution in the case rests on the evidence of Tndu Sinha, Gulzar Ahmad and Madan Mohan Singh P. Ws. all eye-witnesses, Now, what to say of proof, there is not even a suggestion that for any reason, these P. Ws. were sharing any hostility towards the appellant, and were thus interested in his false implication in the case. Indu Sinha is a stamped witness, she having received the injuries. The culprit had thrown acid on her face in broad-day light from a very close range. were sharing any hostility towards the appellant, and were thus interested in his false implication in the case. Indu Sinha is a stamped witness, she having received the injuries. The culprit had thrown acid on her face in broad-day light from a very close range. She has shown that the appellant alone was the person responsible for committing that crime upon her. The defence itself had produced photograph (Ext. A) by which Indu Sinha and the appellant had got themselves photographed together earlier to the occurrence. The defence suggestion put to Indu Sinha further was they had been exchanging letters also. Therefore, it is now an admitted case that the appellant was well known to Indu Sinha, on the day of the occurrence, and even prior thereto. That being so, there was no question of mistaken identity of the culprit in the case. Rather, the anxiety of Indu Sinha would be strongest to bring to book the real culprit, far from substituting an innocent person in his place. In spite of searching cross-examination, the credibility of Indu Sinha P. W. was not even slightly shaken. She is wholly reliable and truthful witnesses, and belongs to the category of such witnesses, on whose sole testimony conviction can safely be recorded. 8. Madan Mohan Singh P. W. was then having his house in Kanheri Hill Area, a Suburb of Hazaribagh. Narbdeshwar Singh P. W. was living in his neighbourhood. Gulzar Ahmad P. W. is a friend of Narbdeshwar Singh. Since Narbdeshwar Singh and Gulzar Ahmad P. Ws. were to pass in front of the Government Giris High School, Hazaribagh on their way to Ichak, they had provided, a lift to Indu Sinha P. W. and his father Madan Mohan Singh in the car upto the School. The presence of Gulzar Ahmad and Madan Mohan Singh P. Ws. at the spot, when the occurrence had taken place is thus natural and probable. Indu Sinha P. W. had just alighted and going inside the school when the occurrence had taken place. Her cries had attracted attention of Gulzer Ahmad and Madan Mohan Singh P. Ws. and they had seen Ashok Kumar appellant running away immediately after committing the crime. How-every, as their anxiety was first to know about the condition of Indu Sinha they had reached near her. She was then in great pain, and in the process of losing senses. Her cries had attracted attention of Gulzer Ahmad and Madan Mohan Singh P. Ws. and they had seen Ashok Kumar appellant running away immediately after committing the crime. How-every, as their anxiety was first to know about the condition of Indu Sinha they had reached near her. She was then in great pain, and in the process of losing senses. On seeing the appellant fleeing away, Madan Mohan Singh and Gulzar Ahmad P. Ws. had chased him in the car, driven by Narbdeshwar Singh. The chase had continued till the appellant was surrounded and secured in the Forest Colongy, Hazaribagh. On being apprehended, it was but natural for Madan Mohan Singh, Gulzar Ahmad and Narbdeshwar Singh to inquire about the occurrence from him The appellant had confessed before the n about his earlier purchasing the acid from Hind Stores, Hazaribagh and then throwing the same on the face of Indu Sinha. The given circumstances of the case require placing full reliance on the evidence of Gulzar Ahmad and Madan Mohan Singh P. Ws. with respect to their seeing the occurrence, and then about making of confession by the appellant before them. Their evidence has also remained unblemished. Minor discrepancies appearing in their statement inter se as about the exact time of the crime, areas covered in chest etc, are too microscopic even to be looked into. Such types of contradictions do crop up in the evidence of most truthful witnesses, when they depose about the occurrence long after it had taken place. Gulzar Ahmad and Madan Mohan Singh P. Ws. wholly independent witnesses, have testified about the appellants throwing acid on Indu Sinha and subsequently of his making confession before them after apprehension. The trial court was absolutely justified in placing full reliance on the evidence of these P. Ws. 9. Sbeo Pujan Kumar P. W. was stated to be the person through whom the appellant had purchased the acid earlier from M/s. Hind Stores, Hazaribagh, Sunil Kumar D. W. has admitted that Sheo Pujan Kumar P. W. was on visiting terms with him and the appellant and is their friend. Sbeo Pujan Kumar P. W. lives in the same locality. He deals in repairing of utensils, and for that work purchases acid. Therefore, the prosecution version that the appellant had secured serves of Sheo Punjan Kumar P, W. in purchasing the acid has a ring of truth in it. Sbeo Pujan Kumar P. W. lives in the same locality. He deals in repairing of utensils, and for that work purchases acid. Therefore, the prosecution version that the appellant had secured serves of Sheo Punjan Kumar P, W. in purchasing the acid has a ring of truth in it. The version of Sunil Kumar D. W. that over commission of theft of the watch of his brother-in-law, Tapas, Ashok Kumar appellant had given beating to Sheo Pujan Kumar P. W. earlier in his presence is an exaggerated one. No suggestion was put to Sheo Pujan Kumar P. W. that the appellant had given him beating for that reason, or that Sunil Kumar D. W. was then present there. Sheo Pujan Kumar P. W. had admitted about his returning the watch after few days. That being so, no ill-will had remained between Sheo Pujan Kumar P. W. and Ashok Kumar appellant on that score. The evidence of Sheo Pujan Kumar P. W. also goes a long way in bringing home the guilt against the appellant. 10. For reasons stated above, this appeal is held without any merit. However, on question of sentence, there appears some scope in its modification. True that the occurrence had taken place long ago and the appellant has already undergone the ordeal of a protracted trial and then or this appeal, but the fact also cannot be lost sight of that he had committed very heinous crime by disfiguring the face and other sensitive parts of the body of Indu Sinha. Having regard to all facts and circumstance of the cast, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of the appellant is reduced by two years, but his fine enhanced to Rs. 25,000 (Rupees Twenty-five thousand). In default of payment of the fine, the appellant shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two years. Whole of the fine, if realized is ordered to be paid to Indu Sinha P. W. as she must have already spent in her treatment. The trial court will send due information in that behalf to her. 11. Subject to modification in the sentence, as indicated above, this appeal fails, and is hereby dismissed- The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds arc cancelled, and he is ordered to be taken into custody forthwith for being remitted to jail for undergoing his sentence.