Judgment :- GUPTA, J. (1) THIS appeal is directed against a judgment dated 17th november, 2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 4th court, Nadia in Sessions Trial No. VI of February, 2000 arising out Sessions case No. 10 of December, 1999 convicting the appellant-Rahambari Mondal, under Section 326 ol the Indian Penal Code and an order dated 18th november, 2000 by which the convict Rahambari was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. (2) THE convict has come up in appeal. (3) THE facts and circumstances of the case briefly stated are as follows :-Manjura, daughter of Sawkat aged about 18 years on 11th July, 1999 in the evening between 7.00 and 7. 30 P. M. was in the kitchen. While she was coming out from the kitchen, she found Rahambari stealthily had entered her house and was standing at a distance of two cubits. Rahambari had earlier proposed to marry Manjura which was rejected by her. Manjura became apprehensive and asked why was he there. He did not answer and threw acid on her face causing serious injury to her face and other parts of the body. Hearing the cry of Manjura, her father Sawkat rushed to the place of occurrence. Brother of Manjura Haider also rushed to the place of occurrence. They were told by the victim that Rahambari had done the mischief who by that time had escaped from the place of occurrence. The father of the victim immediately shifted her to Bagula Hospital. Finding the condition of the patient very serious, the doctor advised him to remove the patient to Saktinagar General Hospital. An ambulance was also provided by him. Manjura was then taken to Saktinagar General Hospital. She remained there for throe days and thereafter she was referred to N. R. S. Hospital, Calcutta. She remained in the N. R. S. Hospital for one and a half month. The left eye of the victim was completely damaged. Her face was disfigured. Other parts of the body were also affected. (4) ON 12th July, 1999 in the morning a written complaint was lodged on the basis whereof a formal F. I. R. was drawn. The accused-Rahambari was charged under Sections 307 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code. He was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the I. P. C. and sentenced as more fully indicated hereinabove. (4) ON 12th July, 1999 in the morning a written complaint was lodged on the basis whereof a formal F. I. R. was drawn. The accused-Rahambari was charged under Sections 307 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code. He was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the I. P. C. and sentenced as more fully indicated hereinabove. (5) THE learned Trial Judge who had the occasion to examine the victim as the P. W. 2 observed as follows :- "as a result of such throwing acid the left eye of the victim has been completely damaged reducing the vision to nill and she also cannot see by her right eye properly and the neck, mouth, forehead have all been disfigured and the nose of the victim has been washed out by acid and thus, the charm and beauty of the victim Manjura Khatoon has been shattered forever and her vital parts around her face have all been completely disfigured and thus, the action of the accused is sufficient to cause grievous hurl to the victim Manjura Khatoon by throwing acid which is corrosive substance and accordingly, the action of the accused constitutes the commission of offence punishable under Section 326, I. P. C. " (6) DR. Prasenjit Bandyopadhyay, P. W. 11, attached to Bagula Rural hospital had the first opportunity to examine the victim. He referred the patient immediately to Nadia District Hospital at Saktinagar. He found the following injuries on the victim :-"1) Acid burn on entire face, upper chest and shoulders. 2) Patient was very distressed duo to pain and burning sensation. " (7) DR. Hazra attached to Nadia District Hospital at Saktinagar examined the victim on 11th July, 1999 at 11. 30 P. M. The treatment given by him to the victim deposed in Court is as follows :- "1) Acid burn on head, face, chest, right upper limb. The patient was given treatment and referred to eye surgeon on the same day and the Superintendent District Hospital was requested to arrange for recording (illegible) declaration. Subsequently on 13. 7. 99 the patient was referred to N. R. S. Medical College Hospital as per advice of eye Surgeon. The condition of the patient was so serious that I though that she could die. Eye surgeon was Dr. I. Ahmed and I know his handwriting and signature. Subsequently on 13. 7. 99 the patient was referred to N. R. S. Medical College Hospital as per advice of eye Surgeon. The condition of the patient was so serious that I though that she could die. Eye surgeon was Dr. I. Ahmed and I know his handwriting and signature. This is the part of bed head ticket written and signed by me (marked exbt. 5.)" (8) DR. Sinha attached to N. R. S. Hospital had occasioned to examine the victim on 13th July, 1999. As regards the injury and the treatment he deposed as follows :- "1) Patient was conscious and was speaking us very low tone. 2) Acid-burn on the face, scalp neck, upper arms, front of the chest, eyes affected vision impaired. The patient was admitted in the hospital. As stated by the patient and party one Rahambari Mondal threw acid to her body and then shifted to Bagula Health Centre and then to saktinagar General Hospital. I prepared two copies Injury report and kept original in the Hospital and issued the copy to party concerned. This is the carbon copy of the injury report prepared and signed by me (marked Exbt. 3). " (9) SERVICE of Dr. Samir Kumar Banerjee, P. W. 14 was requisitioned by the visiting Professor of Surgery. Dr. Banerjee pursuant to such requisition had examined the victim. He deposed in Court as follows :- "on examination I found that different parts of her both eyes were damaged by acid burn and both the cornea of the eyes wee melted. Cornea of the right eye was damaged more and the cornea of the left eye was also damaged. Nepros is of conjunctiva of both the eyes were affected. Eye-lids of both the eyes were affected. I started my treatment and during treatment I was again called on 6. 8. 99. I examined the patient again. With my treatment the right eye was improved though corneal ophasity was absent and eye was congested. In left eye Eye-ball was found smaller in size. Cornea melting was positive. Vision reducetd almost to nil in left eye. This portion of the bed-head ticket is written by me on 3 pages (marked Ext. 8). That patient is present in Court today (witness identifies the patient Manjura Khatun in Court-room). The entire face of the patient has been disfigured. " (10) MR. Cornea melting was positive. Vision reducetd almost to nil in left eye. This portion of the bed-head ticket is written by me on 3 pages (marked Ext. 8). That patient is present in Court today (witness identifies the patient Manjura Khatun in Court-room). The entire face of the patient has been disfigured. " (10) MR. Dastoor, the learned Advocate, appearing in support of the appeal, did not challenge the judgment on its merits. His submissions were two-fold. (a) The appellant on the date of the incident was a juvenile. (b) In any event the appellant on the date of the incident was a young man and evidently irnmalured. Considering the youth and immaturity of the appellant, this Court should reduce the term of imprisonment and he may instead be fined to pay a hefty amount. As a matter of fact, an affidavit affirmed by the appellant on 7th july, 2008 was also filed wherein the following averments were made. "that I am willing to pay Rs. 2. 00. 000/- (two lakhs) as compensation to the victim lady. " (11) BY our order dated 7th July, 2008 the matter was adjourned in order to enable the appellant to deposit the money offered by him which was duly deposited with the learned Registrar General of this Court on 18th august, 2008. (12) IN so far as the first point urged by Mr. Dastoor that the appellant was a juvenile on the date of the incident, we are of the considered opinion that the same is devoid of any merit. As a matter of fact, an application contending that the appellant was a juvenile was made before the learned trial Judge. Evidence was led in support of the contention that the appellant was a juvenile. The application was fixed for arguments but the application was not pressed and was dismissed by an order dated 3rd June, 2000 for non-prosecution on the basis of the submission made by the learned advocate, for the appellant-Rahambari. Therefore, the submission that the appellant was a juvenile on the date of the incident, in our view, is wholly without any substance. That point now stands concluded and cannot be reopened. (13) THE last point urged by Mr. Dastoor is no doubt correct. As a matter of fact, the evidence of the victim herself is that Rahambari wanted to marry her. She rejected his proposal. Rahambari was displeased. That point now stands concluded and cannot be reopened. (13) THE last point urged by Mr. Dastoor is no doubt correct. As a matter of fact, the evidence of the victim herself is that Rahambari wanted to marry her. She rejected his proposal. Rahambari was displeased. The love which Rahambari may have in his heart for this poor woman turned into hatred by the rejection of the proposal and he committed this crime. The crime committed by him is enormous The effect of the crime has to be borne by the victim for the rest of her life. We secured the presence of the victim before us in order to ascertain for our self as to how she had survived the diabolical attack as also to see the extent of injury suffered by her. She was produced before us by the police. Her face has been badly damaged. We have examined her and the gist thereof is as follows :- Q. 1. Ct. What is your name ? Ans. My name is Manjura Khatoon. Q. 2. Ct. What is your fathers name ? Ans. , My father is name is Sawkat Ali Mondal. Q. 3. Ct. Where are you residing V Ans. I reside at my matrimonial house. Q. 4. Ct. What is your husbands name ? Ans. My husbands name is Qudclus Ali Mondal. Q. 5. Ct. For How many years are you married ? Ans. I am married for live years. Q. 6. Ct. Do you have any child ? Ans. Yes My Lords. I have one male child. Q. 7. Ct. Is your husband present in Court ? Ans. No My Lords. My father is present in Court. Q. 8. Ct. What is the occupation of your husband ? Ans. My husband is a day labourer. Q. 9. Ct. Do you still suffer from any ailment ? Ans. My Lords, I do feel burning irritation when I expose myself to sunlight. I cannot go near fire. Q. 10. Ct. What is your present matrimonial address ? Ans. My present matrimonial address is VIII : Kanibamoni , P. O. Dattapulia , P. S. Dhantala , Dist. Nadia. Q. 11. Ct. Would you agree if this Court makes arrangement for your medical treatment V (14) FROM the records we find that the appellant was arrested on 10th August, 1999. He was granted interim bail on 29th May, 2000. Ans. My present matrimonial address is VIII : Kanibamoni , P. O. Dattapulia , P. S. Dhantala , Dist. Nadia. Q. 11. Ct. Would you agree if this Court makes arrangement for your medical treatment V (14) FROM the records we find that the appellant was arrested on 10th August, 1999. He was granted interim bail on 29th May, 2000. He was again arrested on 1st July,2000 and was thereafter enlarged on bail by an order dated 11th April, 2005 passed by this Court. Therefore, in the first phase he was in the prison for a period of nine months nineteen days and in the second phase he was in the custody for a period of four years nine months and ten days. His actual period of imprisonment works out to five years six months and twenty-nine days. (15) COMING to the question of punishment we cannot but opine that it has a social purpose to serve which cannot be fully achieved by a prolonged imprisonment. By punishing the offender (a) we strive to correct him ; (b) we strive to lay an example so that the same may have a deterrent effect upon others who may be contemplating to commit a crime ; (c) we also strive to avoid recurrence of the incident in future and (d) in some measure we give room to the vengeance on behalf of the society. The other justification for the punishment is that it is in self-defence of the society that the offender is punished by the Court. But the question still remains "has the victim been forgotten?" Seeking an answer to this question the legislature has enacted Section 357 in the Cr. P. C, which can fruitfully be pressed into service in deserving cases. Individual interest and social interest do not always merge into each other. Experience shows that they often compete with each other and the Court has to strike a balance. With this end in view we pass the following order. (16) THE period of imprisonment of the appellant, Rahambari Mondal, in connection with Sessions Trial No. VI of February, 2000 (Sessions Case no. 10 of December, 1999) awarded by the learned trial Court is reduced to the period already undergone and he is sentenced to pay fine of a sum of Rs. (16) THE period of imprisonment of the appellant, Rahambari Mondal, in connection with Sessions Trial No. VI of February, 2000 (Sessions Case no. 10 of December, 1999) awarded by the learned trial Court is reduced to the period already undergone and he is sentenced to pay fine of a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs which he has already deposited with the treasury of this Court by a challan on 18th August, 2008. Lei Hie entire amount of fine realized from the appellant be. deposited by the learned Registrar General of this court with the State Bank of India, to the credit of the victim Manjura Khatoon, daughter of Sawkat Ali Mondal with a Branch in the vicinity of her residence to be nominated by the District and Sessions Judge, Nadia at Krishnagar. The State Bank of India is directed to keep this money in a Long Term fixed Deposit Account to the credit of the said victim, Manjura Khatoon. The State Bank of India Is further directed to see that the highest possible rate of interest is granted to such deposit and the same is also revised periodically so as to give her benefit of the prevailing rate of interest in future. The interest shall be payable to the aforesaid victim on the first day of every month holidays excepted. The aforesaid victim shall not be entitled to withdraw the principal amount except upon leave to be obtained from this Court for appropriate reasons coupled with a recommendation of the concerned District and Sessions Judge, Nadia at Krishnagar. (17) IT appears that the appellant, Rahambari Mondal, was enlarged on bail by an order 11. 4. 2005. The ball bond stands discharged in view of the reduction of the imprisonment as aforesaid. The appeal is to this limited extent allowed. (18) THE Surgeon Superintendent of the S. S. K. M. Hospital is directed to personally examine the victim and arrange for the best treatment which can be made available to her including plastic surgery at the cost of the state. He shall refer her to the appropriate Doctor of the appropriate department at the appropriate Hospital and shall monitor her treatment. Liberty to apply. (19) LET a copy of the judgment along with the lower Court records be sent down to the concerned learned trial Court forthwith for information and necessary action.