JUDGMENT - R.K. BATTA, J. :---The applicant challenges the concurrent findings of fact in this Revision Application. The applicant was tried for the offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- , in default Rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2 The appellant filed appeal against the said order of the Magistrate and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Washim, by the impugned order, which is subject matter of revision, allowed the appeal partly. The conviction of the applicant under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code was set aside and instead the applicant was found guilty under section 324 of the I.P.C. The substantive sentence of R.I. for two years reduced to one year. The fine of Rs. 1,000/-, imposed by the trial Court, was maintained. 3. The learned Advocate for the applicant urged before me that the eye-witnesses have turned hostile in this case and the Courts have erred in convicting the applicant solely on the testimony of the complainant, who is an interested witness. It is further submitted that the testimony of the complainant is not supported by any other witness or material on record and that the conviction as well as sentence be set aside. 4. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor urged before me that the complainant not only stood the test of cross-examination, but his testimony is corroborated by the medical evidence, the report of Chemical Analyser, evidence of P.W. 13 Ramrao Deshmukh. In addition, it is pointed out that the applicant took a false defence that the injuries were suffered on account of falling of boiled tea in the marriage, which is an additional link to prove the charge against the applicant. 5. A large number of witnesses were cited by the prosecution and majority of them turned hostile. It is a matter of common experience that in this territory large number of witnesses turn hostile and this feature can be seen in almost all criminal cases. The learned Additional Sessions Judge found that the witnesses in this case have turned hostile as the said witnesses are related to each other and they are neighbourers of the applicant. The testimony of the complainant was accepted by two courts below and the trial Court had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the complainant. The learned Additional Sessions Judge found that the witnesses in this case have turned hostile as the said witnesses are related to each other and they are neighbourers of the applicant. The testimony of the complainant was accepted by two courts below and the trial Court had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the complainant. The complainant categorically stated that the accused took out a bottle and glass, poured liquid in the glass and asked him to drink. The complainant suspected the action of the applicant and the applicant threw liquid on the person of the complainant by which he sustained burn injuries on his neck, chest, stomach and also on shoulder. He was immediately taken to the Doctor. While he was being taken to the Doctor from the house of Vishwanath Nikam, where he had gone and where the incident took place, he had stated that the acid was thrown on his person by the applicant. P.W. 13 Ramrao Deshmukh has deposed in respect of this fact. The statement was made by the complainant immediately after the incident and it is relevant as part of the same transaction under section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act. This piece of evidence was also accepted by the courts. The case of the complainant is corroborated by the evidence of Dr. Manohar Wankhede, who not only found the injuries on the person of the complainant but observed that the age of the injuries was one hour and the same was caused by acidic solution. It appears that the Medical Officer has also examined Bhanudas and Vishwanath on whom there was some injuries by means of acid. Thus the presence of the applicant and Vishwanath at the time of incident is established. Of course, Vishwanath-P.W. 10 did not support the prosecution case but the presence of burn injuries on his person is mute testimony that he was present at the time of incident and he has intentionally withheld the truth from this Court. Besides medical evidence, the report of the Chemical Analyser also corroborates the case of the complainant. The Chemical Analyser in his report has stated that Sulphuric acid detected on the clothes of the complainant. The complainant has stated that as a result of throwing of acid, his cloths were also burnt. The Chemical Analyser found that in the bottle, which was found on the spot, there was sulphuric acid. The Chemical Analyser in his report has stated that Sulphuric acid detected on the clothes of the complainant. The complainant has stated that as a result of throwing of acid, his cloths were also burnt. The Chemical Analyser found that in the bottle, which was found on the spot, there was sulphuric acid. In addition to this, the false defence was put up by the applicant that the injuries were on account of falling of boiled tea, which is ruled out by the medical evidence as well as the report of the Chemical Analyser. Falsity of defence is an additional link to prove the prosecution case. 6. In view of the above, I do not find any merit whatsoever in this Criminal Revision Application and the Revision is hereby rejected. 7. The applicant shall surrender before the trial Court to undergo the sentence, within a period of two weeks from today. In case the applicant does not surrender, the Magistrate shall adopt coercive process by issuing warrant of arrest and also taking action for forfeiture of bail bonds. Criminal Revision rejected. -----