Judgment B.N.P.Singh, J. 1. Though the appellant was charged under Sections 307, 326 and also 324 of the Indian Penal Code, on being tried by VI Additional Sessions Judge, Purnea in Sessions Trial No. 617 of 1999, he suffered conviction only under Sections 326 & 324 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of seven years and two years respectively, on these two counts, with direction that both the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. The factual matrixAt about 1 P.M. on 2nd September, 1987, it was alleged, that while Badri Narayan Poddar (P.W. 5) was in the court compound, the appellant came and abused him and, instantaneously poured acid on his person, for which he suffered burn injuries. He was rushed to the hospital on a rickshaw where he was admitted for treatment. The motive assigned behind the incident, as suggested by the prosecution, was that he was a witness in a case pending against the appellant. After fardbeyan of Badri Narayan Poddar was recorded by Shri H. N. Singh, A.S.I. of Khazanchi Hat PS. on fourteen hours on 2nd September, 1987, the investigation followed, in course of which, the investigating officer visited the place of occurrence, recorded statement of witnesses, seized burnt wearing apparels, allegedly, that of the appellant from bed no. 16 of the hospital, got the victim chemically examined by the doctor and on conclusion of investigation laid chargesheet before the court. In the eventual trial that followed, the State examined altogether fourteen witnesses including the injured, host of other witnesses who demonstrated familiarity with the incident, the doctor & the police officers. 3. The defence of the appellant before the court below and also this court had been that of innocence and his false implication due to some previous animosity. However, the trial court on appreciation the testimony of witnesses while negativing plea of innocence of the appellant, recorded verdict of guilt finding him guilty under Sections 326 & 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him, in the manner stated above. 4. However, the trial court on appreciation the testimony of witnesses while negativing plea of innocence of the appellant, recorded verdict of guilt finding him guilty under Sections 326 & 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him, in the manner stated above. 4. Lot of arguments were canvassed at bar by Shri Lala Kailash Bihari Prasad, learned counsel appearing as Amicus Curiae on behalf of the appellant urged that though the place of occurrence, as was admitted by the witnesses, was the court premises which was a busy place where a number of person usually come to court in connection with judicial proceedings, the State had examined only two persons, who were interested in the affairs of the injured, entirely to the exclusion of the independent witnesses. The contentions are raised that notwithstanding positive finding recorded by the doctor that both the injured sustained simple injuries which were even superficial in nature, the trial court on erroneous assumption about the injuries to be grievous in nature, recorded verdict of guilt under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code which runs contrary to the weight of mass of evidence including that of the doctor. It is urged that since the appellant has suffered ordeal of protracted prosecution for about seventeen years and also that he has suffered custody for more than three and half years, the equity of justice would require that the appellant is not sent to custody to serve out the sentence awarded by the court beiow, in case, the finding of court below is upheld by this court. The learned counsel appearing for the State strongly urged that the prosecution has led reliable evidence to sustain the charge brought against the accused. 5. Now delving upon the testimony of witnesses, l wish to take up the testimony of those, who were not the ocular witness to the incident, and they are Md. Yasin Ansari, P.W. 6 who was a compounder of Sadar Hospital, Purnea. 5. Now delving upon the testimony of witnesses, l wish to take up the testimony of those, who were not the ocular witness to the incident, and they are Md. Yasin Ansari, P.W. 6 who was a compounder of Sadar Hospital, Purnea. He brought on the record, the bed-head ticket in respect of the injured when he was admitted to hospital in emergency ward, Purnea, Shri M. K. Poddar, P.W. 7 who was son of the injured, stated to have received information about his father having suffered acid injury on his person at the hands of the appellant, when he rushed to hospital where he met his injured father and got him admitted in the hospital. Shri S.N. Jha, P.W. 8, would state that appellant poured acid on Badri Narayan Poddar, for which an information was also laid by Badri before ten days of the incident in the advocates clerks association, Purnea, about the appellant coercing Badri Narayan Pandey. Hardeo Narayan Singh, P.W. 10, who was a police officer, stated to have recorded statement of Badri at Sadar Hospital, Purnea, at about 2 P.M. on receipt of O. D. slip from the police, on 2nd September, 1987. He stated to have prepared injury report in respect of both the persons, who were Badri Narayan Poddar and Narayan Mahto, pursuant to which, first information report was drawn up at the police station. Shri M. P. Sinha and Narayan Mahto, who happened to be the compounder, stated about seizure of some burnt wearing apparels, allegedly, that of the appellant from bed No. 16 at the hospital by the police officer. Sri Raj Narayan Singh, who partly contributed to investigation, was P.W. 12 and he stated to have apprehended the appellant and laid chargesheet before the court on conclusion of the investigation. Sri R. N. Prasad, P.W. 13, was another police officer, who stated to have drawn up F.I.R. on statement of Sri Badri Narayan Poddar. He stated to have visited hospital and examined the injured. He met also Mithilesh Kumar, son of the injured, who stated that the informant was hospitalised in the hospital since 3rd August, 1987 and on 2nd September, 1987 he was discharged from the hospital. P.W. 13 stated about seizure of some article including a burnt wearing apparel, allegedly, that of the appellant from bed No. 16 in the hospital. He met also Mithilesh Kumar, son of the injured, who stated that the informant was hospitalised in the hospital since 3rd August, 1987 and on 2nd September, 1987 he was discharged from the hospital. P.W. 13 stated about seizure of some article including a burnt wearing apparel, allegedly, that of the appellant from bed No. 16 in the hospital. Sri R. P. Thakur, P.W. 14 was the injured and he too would state having learnt about the appellant having poured acid on the person of Sri Badri Narayan Poddar. This witness too stated about seizure of some burnt wearing apparels to be that of the appellant from the hospital. 6. Among other set of witnesses who claimed to be ocular, was Umeshwar Mandal, RW. 4. He was sitting in the Sirista of Jagdish who was advocates clerk, when he noticed the appellant having poured acid on the person of Badri Narayan Poddar and also Narayan Mahto. Both the injured were carried to the hospital on rickshaw, though these witnesses were examined by the police after about 16 or 17 days of the incident. RW. 4 would state that Badri Narayan Poddar was making pairvi in a case which was pending against the appellant. Sri Badri Narayan Poddar P.W. 5, happens to be not only maker of fardbeyan but is also an injured witness. He would reiterate the narrations made earlier before the police about the appellant having poured acid on his person, as a consequence of which even Narayan Mahto sitting beside him, suffered injury. The witness would state that he lost his eyes and also his ears. As was stated by him, he was carried to hospital by rickshaw and after treatment was over, he was discharged from the hospital on 21st October, 1987. The witness would state about rendering his statement before the police and will also assign motive behind the incident. The other witness was Narayan Mahtc, P.W. 1 who too was an injured witness. The doctor, who examined him, stated to have noticed some superficial injuries on different parts of his person. He would state about he having suffered injuries while he was sitting in the company of Badri Narayan Poddar in the court premises. Jagdish Prasad Mandal, RW. The other witness was Narayan Mahtc, P.W. 1 who too was an injured witness. The doctor, who examined him, stated to have noticed some superficial injuries on different parts of his person. He would state about he having suffered injuries while he was sitting in the company of Badri Narayan Poddar in the court premises. Jagdish Prasad Mandal, RW. 2 was also an advocates clerk and he too stated about the appellant having poured acid from a tumbler on Badri Narayan Poddar when Narayan Mahto too suffered injuries, and the last witness was Sri Madhukant Jha, P.W. 3. He too was an advocates clerk and while he was with Jagdish, the other advocates clerk, he noticed appellant having poured acid on the person of Badri Narayan Poddar when he suffered burnt injuries on his face and even the other person sitting beside him had suffered burn injuries. This is all the evidence that has been adduced on behalf of the State. It would appear from the narrations made by the witnesses that besides P.Ws. 1 to 5, who were ocular witnesses, there was evidence of other witnesses too, which had lent assurance to the prosecution allegation about Badri Narayan Poddar having suffered burn injuries on his person due to throw of acid. There has been evidence also of the doctor about taking of the injured in the hospital and, that apart, the positive finding of the doctor would manifestly suggest about both the injured having suffered acid burn injuries on their persons by chemical agent. 7. While appreciating the contentions raised at bar on behalf of the appellant l notice that notwithstanding the fact that the doctor had noticed simple and superficial burn injuries on the person of the injured for which dimension of the injuries had been noted, the court below on being obsessed with other considerations, recorded finding of guilt also under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. The grounds which were taken into consideration by the court below was that the informant had suffered injury on his neck and face and there was also disfiguration of face. The grounds which were taken into consideration by the court below was that the informant had suffered injury on his neck and face and there was also disfiguration of face. The court below had noticed that doctor who examined the injured, had not noticed any injury on right ear or eye, notwithstanding recitals of these injuries having been made in the injury slip issued by the police, However, the court below, in view of the gravity of charges, seems to have got swayed in evaluating testimony of the doctor in proper perspective and came to conclusion that the finding of the doctor can be applied for limited purposes only to show that the injured was admitted to hospital with burn injuries caused by chemical agent. Since the injured remained hospitalised for a longer period, the court below on that ground too came to conclusion that the injuries suffered by Badri Narayan Poddar, must be grievous. The doctor had noted dimensions of injuries, and on examination of the injured, had noticed injuries to be not only simple but superficial in nature. There was no evidence of other witnesses about disfiguration of the person of the injured. Conviction of the appellant and sentence thereunder is, accordingly, set aside. He is acquitted of charge under Section 326 l.P.C. However, reasonings assigned by the court below, for convicting appellant, under section 324 l.P.C, in view of narrations made by other witnesses does not appear to be against weight of mass of evidence and hence, while upholding conviction of the appellant under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, in view of he having suffered ordeal of protracted prosecution for about seventeen years and remaining in custody for about three and half years is sentenced to the period already undergone by him, and with this modification, the appeal is dismissed. Shri Lala Kailash Bihari Prasad, who appeared as amicus curiae, shall be paid his fee from the Patna High Court Legal Services Committee.