JUDGMENT - S.S. PARKAR, J.:---The appellant having been convicted for the offence under section 326 of I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer R.I. for month has filed this appeal challenging the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No. 113 of 1991 on 28th July, 1992. 2. The brief facts, leading to the conviction of the appellant, are as follows: The appellant was charged for the offence under section 307 of I.P.C. alternatively under section 326 of I.P.C. for having thrown acid on his wife Vimla P.W.1. They were residing at Adarsh Nagar, Pimpari, Pune. The appellant was addicted to liquor. Vimla had, therefore, handed over her ornaments to her brother. Consequently there was quarrel between husband and wife. On 30th March, 1990 at about 5 p.m. appellant came home and demanded money from Vimla for liquor which she did not give. He went out on a pretext to bring tea in a glass and came back with acid instead. As soon as she opened the door, appellant threw acid on her from the glass in his hand, as a result she sustained burn injuries on her chest and waist. She was rushed to the Jaimata Hospital, initially, from where she was referred to Sassoon Hospital, Pune. Dr. Sonawane P.W. 4, who examined her, noticed about 38% burn injuries on the person of Vimla. She was hospitalised from 30th March, 1990 to 20th August, 1990. After admission to the Sassoon Hospital, intimation was given to Pimpari Police Station. Police Head Constable Sawant arranged for recording her dying declaration by a Special Executive Magistrate, Shri Avad. Her statement was recorded by the Special Executive Magistrate. Police Head Constable Sawant P.W. 3 himself had already recorded her F.I.R. (Exhibit 7). The offence came to be registered under C.R. No. 15 of 1990. Police Head Constable Sawant P.W. 3 prepared the spot panchanama (Exhibit 14) in the presence of panchas. Police Head Constable Sawant also seized victim's saree, petticoat and gunny bag which were found burnt. Further investigation was carried on by PSI Ghule P.W. 6. The appellant was absconding and could be arrested only on 30-11-1990 i.e. after a period of eight months. Police Head Constable Sawant also seized victim's saree, petticoat and gunny bag which were found burnt. Further investigation was carried on by PSI Ghule P.W. 6. The appellant was absconding and could be arrested only on 30-11-1990 i.e. after a period of eight months. After completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed on 25-12-1990 in the Court of JMFC, Pimpari and the case was committed to Sessions Court, Pune. 3. Before the Sessions Court, charges under section 307 of the I.P.C. and in the alternative under section 326 of I.P.C. were framed. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. On behalf of the prosecution six witnesses have been examined. P.W. 1 is injured victim Vimla. P.W. 2 is Saraswati Khurani, the sister of Vimla. P.W. 3 is Police Head Constable Namdeo Sawant. P.W. 4 is Dr. Sonawane who examined and treated victim Vimla. P.W. 5 is Ramesh Shinde, the panch to the spot panchanama (Exhibit 14) and lastly P. W. 6 is PSI Ghule who investigated the offence and filed charge sheet. The defence of the appellant was of total denial. 5. After considering the entire evidence on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune acquitted the appellant under section 307 of I.P.C. but convicted him under section 326 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer R.I. for one month. It is the said order of conviction and sentence which is impugned in this appeal. 6. Mr. More, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, after taking me through the entire evidence on record, contended that there was likelihood that Vimla's neighbour Thapa, who was her former husband, might have thrown acid on Vimla as she was staying with the appellant. He also contended that the prosecution evidence cannot be believed as the dying declaration of Vimla recorded by Special Executive Magistrate so also the record from the Jijamata Hospital was not produced. 7. It is not necessary to produce her statement recorded by Special Executive Magistrate when earlier statement (Exhibit-7) was produced, the victim having survived. Moreover, no inconsistencies were alleged. The deposition of victim Vimla (P.W. 1) is at Exhibit- 6. Her statement was recorded immediately after her admission to the Sassoon Hospital within a short time after the incident. 7. It is not necessary to produce her statement recorded by Special Executive Magistrate when earlier statement (Exhibit-7) was produced, the victim having survived. Moreover, no inconsistencies were alleged. The deposition of victim Vimla (P.W. 1) is at Exhibit- 6. Her statement was recorded immediately after her admission to the Sassoon Hospital within a short time after the incident. The said statement is at Exhibit-7 which was lodged as F.I.R. The incident had taken place in a broad day light and there was no question of Vimla not indentifying the appellant, whom she had married subsequently and was staying with him. The appellant had thrown acid on the person of Vimla after she opened the door when appellant called her. She was immediately taken to the hospital where her statement was recorded. There was no omission or contradiction shown in her deposition. There was no question of producing the record from Jijamata Hospital as witness stated that when she went there she was referred to Sassoon Hospital. When victim Vimla was not admitted or given any treatment in Jijamata Hospital, there was no question of producing any record of that hospital. Merely because she was taken from Jijamata Hospital to Sassoon Hospital, Pune in an ambulance, there is no question of production of any record from Jijamata Hospital for taking her to Sassoon Hospital in an ambulance as argued by Mr. More. Her evidence is supported by Dr. Sonawane (P.W. 4). He stated that he had recorded the history of burns which was given by victim Vimla herself. She had told him that there was quarrel with her husband on previous two days and on that afternoon her husband threw acid on her body and burnt her. According to Dr. Sonawane (P.W. 4) she was conscious and well oriented when she was admitted in the hospital. According to the doctor she had suffered 38% burns. Doctor has produced the case papers of the hospital at Exhibit- 12. 8. There is further corroboration to the testimony of victim from the deposition of (P.W. 2). Saraswati who is the sister of victim Vimla. Victim Vimla had informed her that her husband had thrown the acid on her person. P.W. 3 Police Head Constable Sawant who recorded F.I.R. of Vimla, which is at Exhibit- 7, also supports the version of the victim Vimla. Saraswati who is the sister of victim Vimla. Victim Vimla had informed her that her husband had thrown the acid on her person. P.W. 3 Police Head Constable Sawant who recorded F.I.R. of Vimla, which is at Exhibit- 7, also supports the version of the victim Vimla. The spot panchanama, under which victim's clothes were attached, supports the prosecution case. 9. The reliance by Mr. More on the acid injury on the hand of Thapa, the neighbour of the victim, as deposed by P.S.I. Ghule, would not demolish the prosecution case that it was the appellant who had thrown acid on Vimla. There is absolutely no reason shown as to why Vimla should falsely implicate the appellant if the acid was thrown on her person by her neighbour Thapa. This case was not even put to victim Vimla. Since the victim had suffered severe burn injuries which required her hospitalisation for a period of five months, surely it would be a grievous hurt, within the meaning of clause Eighthly of section 320 of I.P.C. In these circumstances, the order of conviction of the appellant for the offence under section 326 cannot be doubted. 10. So far as the sentence is concerned, Mr. More contended that the appellant should be released on probation. He cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of (Ved Prakash v. State of Haryana)1, reported in A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 643. That judgment does not indicate the offence committed by the accused. In this case the appellant had his own wife and children. Thereafter he chose to marry victim and on a small issue he went to the extent of throwing acid on her person. The accused had no defence or explanation to offer except to deny the prosecution case in toto. After throwing acid, appellant was absconding for a period of eight months. In the circumstances the sentence cannot be faulted with. 11. In the result, the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court in Sessions Case No. 113 of 1991 against the appellant on 28-7-1992 is confirmed and appeal is dismissed. The appellant shall surrender to his bail bond forthwith. Appeal dismissed. -----