JUDGMENT : R.B. Misra, J. The present Criminal Appeal has come up for adjudication after the grant of leave to appeal under Section 378 (3) of the Code of criminal Procedure in reference to judgment dated 31.12.1996, passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmour District at Nahan,H.P., in Sessions Case No. 7N/7 of 1994, for the offence under Section 307, 326 and 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, acquitting the alleged accused / respondents. 2. Accusedrespondent No.2 Ram Rattan has died, therefore, criminal appeal in reference to accusedrespondent No.2 Ram Rattan is abated. 3. The prosecution story is that the victim / injured Ajay Kumar (PW.2), son of complainant Kanshi Ram, was running a DryCleaning shop near Sessions Court, Nahan. The victim / Ajay Kumar usually left every morning to his shop and was returning back in the evening. On 24.6.1994 after closing his shop, while proceeding towards his house, when the victim reached near Foundry Club, Nahan, some one hit him on his head with an iron rod from behind. When he turned back, he saw Tinda alias Virender Singh having a rod in his hand. Accused Ram Nath son of Parma Nand and accused Tinda friend of Ram Rattan were also seen there. When victim / Ajay Kumar tried to run away, he saw accused Ravi Dutt and one more person near Bar Tree. Accused Ravi Dutt having a bottle of acid in his hand ran with another person towards victim / Ajay Kumar. Accused Ram Rattan (now dead) caught hold of PW.2 / ( victim / Ajay Kumar) from behind. Accused Ravi Dutt threw acid on the head of victim / Ajay Kumar. Accused Ram Rattan asked Ravi Dutt to hand over the acid bottle to him, so that he could also pour acid on PW.2. Accused persons then inflicted multiple injuries on the person of victim / Ajay Kumar including his knee, writs and hands with Darat and iron rod. The said incident was witnessed by Dinesh Kumar, cousin of victim / Ajay Kumar, coming behind at some distance and a Pujari of Khalisthan Mandir also witnessed this occurrence. PW.2 / ( victim / Ajay Kumar) thereafter, was lifted by all the accused persons and thrown near a path leading to Purbian Mohalla. The victim was thereafter, taken to the hospital in an unconscious condition. PW.2 / ( victim / Ajay Kumar) thereafter, was lifted by all the accused persons and thrown near a path leading to Purbian Mohalla. The victim was thereafter, taken to the hospital in an unconscious condition. Complainant Kanshi Ram, immediately rushed to the District Hospital, Nahan and observed number of injuries on the person of victim / Ajay Kumar. Statement of the complainant Kanshi Ram was sent by Head Constable Hari Singh through Constable Joginder Singh. Accordingly, FIR No. 122/1994 for the offence under Sections 307, 326, 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. 4. After investigation, all the three accused, namely, Ram Rattan, Ravi Dutt and Virender Singh alias Tinda were arrested on 25.6.1994 and PW.23 Dharam Singh visited the spot. Accusedrespondents were charged for the above offence. 5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 23 prosecution witnesses. Whereas, the accused / respondents through their statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., have denied the prosecution case. 6. PW.1 Kanshi Ram, in support of the prosecution case has stated that when he reached to home, his nephew Dinesh Kumar (PW.3) informed him that Ravi Dutt and his younger brother etc. had thrown acid on the face of his son Ajay Kumar, near Foundry Club Gate, and accused persons after inflicting injuries, have thrown the victim near a path leading to Purbian Mohallah, while coming home on 24.6.1994, at about 6.00 P.M. PW.1 Kanshi Ram was also told by PW.3 Dinesh Kumar that Ajay Kumar has been taken to hospital. Accordingly, PW.1 went to the hospital and observed victim / Ajay Kumar lying unconscious and in the injured condition. PW.1 also observed that clothes of victim / Ajay Kumar were badly stained with blood. There were wounds of acid burning on his body. PW.1 also stated that earlier also in 1991, the accused persons had given thrashing to his son victim / Ajay Kumar near Chowgaan and later on looted his shop and also destroyed the clothes of customers lying in the shop for dry cleaning. In that reference, a criminal case registered at the instance of accused persons, his son was an accused, in which he was acquitted on 6.6.1994. As per testimony of PW.1, police came to the hospital and recorded his statement Ex. In that reference, a criminal case registered at the instance of accused persons, his son was an accused, in which he was acquitted on 6.6.1994. As per testimony of PW.1, police came to the hospital and recorded his statement Ex. PA and on the next day, police came to the spot and recovered pieces of glass, some hair, two pieces of thread, blood scrapped from the wall, blood stained leaves and some hair vide recovery memos. Ex. PB, Ex.PC and Ex. PD in presence of PW.3 (Dinesh Kumar ), who signed the recovery memos. As per testimony of PW.1 victim / Ajay Kumar remained in District Hospital upto 26.6.1994. Thereafter, he was transferred / referred to PGI Chandigarh, there he remained upto 30.9.1994, where he lost his both eyes completely and his hands have also been deformed. In crossexamination also PW.1 has stated that he has three sons and victim / Ajay Kumar is the youngest one and his nephew Dinesh Kumar used to work as washer man at his home during those days. On the date of occurrence, when PW.1 returned back to his home, he notice that all the members of the family and relatives had gone to hospital, however, he reached the hospital at about 6.30 P.M. / 6.45 P.M., where Dinesh Kumar narrated everything about the incident. 7. PW.2 victim / Ajay Kumar in support of the prosecution case, has stated that after acid was poured by the accused persons, some one took him to the District Hospital where he was kept for one day and thereafter, he was shifted to PGI Chandigarh, where he remained for about 33 ½months. PW.2 victim / Ajay Kumar also stated that in April, 1991, accused Ravi Dutt and his friend gave beatings to him near Chowgaan and thereafter in the evening, they looted his shop. Two cross criminal cases, one against PW.2 and the other against the accused persons were decided on 6.6.1994 wherein PW.2 and other accused persons were acquitted. As per testimony of PW.2, he became totally blind and both of his hands have been deformed and he is unable to do anything with his hands, and even cannot tie the string of his trouser. As per testimony of PW.2, he became totally blind and both of his hands have been deformed and he is unable to do anything with his hands, and even cannot tie the string of his trouser. In crossexamination, PW.2 victim / Ajay Kumar has stated that after the acid was poured over him, he sustained injuries, but he did not become unconscious, but in hospital he was unconscious throughout night and gained consciousness on the next day. PW.2 has further stated that at that time, his parents were present in the hospital and on 25.6.1994, police inquired about the occurrence. PW.2 (victim / Ajay Kumar ) also stated in crossexamination that at the time of occurrence several persons were going after office hours on the road, however, he has denied that he was implicating the accused out of enmity. PW.2 has also stated that he has narrated the whole occurrence to the police including the names of Pujari and Dinesh Kumar. 8. PW.3 Dinesh Kumar has been declared hostile in view of statement that he did not see the occurrence on 24.6.1994 at 5.30 P.M. 9. PW.4 Krishan Lal, S.D.M., Nahan has stated that on 24.6.1994, the police made an application requesting him to record the dying declaration of injured victim/Ajay Kumar. Accordingly, PW.4 visited the hospital for recording the statement of victim/Ajay Kumar son of Kanshi Ram, but statement could not be recorded as he was not fit to give any statement. 10. PW.5 Dr. R.C. Mahindru, Medical Officer, District Hospital, Nahan, after examining the victim / Ajay Kumar has noted the following injuries as indicated below:1. There was clean lacerated wound over mid line in posterior part of parietal region measuring about 4 cm x 1 cm under lined tissues and bones were visible and bleeding was also present. 2. There was a clean incised wound just above patella. Under lying muscles and tissues were visible. Fracture of lower and of femur was also there. The wound was elliptical measuring about 3 cm x 1 cm with bleeding present. 3. There was clean incised wound over left forearm near wrist. It was horizontally placed on the anterior surface about 2 cm x 1 cm and the under lying tissues were visible. The tendons were severed. Lower end of radius was fractured. Bleeding was present. 4. The wound was elliptical measuring about 3 cm x 1 cm with bleeding present. 3. There was clean incised wound over left forearm near wrist. It was horizontally placed on the anterior surface about 2 cm x 1 cm and the under lying tissues were visible. The tendons were severed. Lower end of radius was fractured. Bleeding was present. 4. There was clean incised wound 1 cm x ½on the left ring finger and the underlying tissue and bones were visible. There was fracture dislocation of left first inter phalangeal joint. Bleeding was present. 5. There was clean incised wound over left thumb on the palmer aspect about 1½cm x 1 cm with underlying bone fracture and bleeding present. Acid burns injuries: 1. Upper part of face including both eyes with both eyes cornea involved. 2. middle part of chest anterior aspect extending to upper part of abdomen. 3. Both arms interior surface extending to both hands palmer and dorsal surface. 4. Both thighs interior aspect upper half. In the opinion of PW.5, both the eyes of the victim/Ajay Kumar were injured and burn injuries were grievous in nature. The nature of injury No.1 was simple, whereas, injuries No. 2 to 5 were grievous in nature. Injury No.1 had been caused by a blunt weapon. Injuries No. 2 to 5 had been caused by sharp weapon. Injury No.2 to 5 could have been caused by a Drat or a Sickle. Injury No.1 could be caused by an iron rod. All acid burn injuries caused by an acid. In crossexamination also PW.5 reiterated his statement given in examinationinchief, indicating only that he found no acid injury on the head of the injured person. 11. PW.6 Dr. S.S. Rathore, Eye Surgeon, District Hospital, Nahan, has also examined victim / Ajay Kumar and on examination noticed the injuries as below:“The lids of both the eyes on either side were found swollen with reduced palpaberal aperture. Conjunctiva was markedly swollen and white in colour. Both sides corneas were completely milky white in colour and marked edema was present. The pupil, ires could not be seen due to haziness of cornea. The visual status was only limited to projection of light in both the eyes. There was brownish discolouration over the forehead and cheeks were also suggestive of acid burns. Both sides corneas were completely milky white in colour and marked edema was present. The pupil, ires could not be seen due to haziness of cornea. The visual status was only limited to projection of light in both the eyes. There was brownish discolouration over the forehead and cheeks were also suggestive of acid burns. The skin of all the four lids was very hard and brownish in colour.” In opinion of PW.6, the nature of injury to both the eyes was grievous in nature caused by acid, eyes of injured victim / Ajay Kumar could not be saved even if he had been given immediate treatment within 15 minutes. 12. PW.7 Dr. S.K. Sablog has stated that Ravi Dutt accused was produced before him in dispensary in the Central Jail, Nahan, but he gave in writing Ex. PH that he did not want to give his hair sample. 13. PW.8 Dr. Sanjay Sharma examined accused Ram Rattan (now dead). As per testimony of PW.8, accused Ram Rattan gave in writing Ex.PJ that he did not want to give his hair sample. In view of testimony of PW.8, accused Virender Singh alias Tinda vide his writing Ex. PK did not want to give sample of his hair for examination. 14. PW.9 Dr. G. Narang has stated that he examined victim / Ajay Kumar after Xrays and found that there were fractures on shaft of femur left side, distal phalanx of left thumb, distal phalanx of ring finger, lower end of radius left side skull was normal. 15. PW.10 Dr. Anupam Chaturvedi examined accused Ram Rattan on 25.6.1994, at 4.00 P.M. and noticed the following injuries on his person:1. Face:There were multiple burns scattered all over the face. The burns were more on the left cheek. The size of the bigger burns was 2.5” x 1 “ and oval in shape and the dusky brown in colour. The rest of the burns were 3 mm x 2 mm in size. Dusky brown in colour and 30 in number. Left upper eye lid also had a burn injury 10 mm x 5 mm in size. Dusky brown in colour. There was no discharge or oozing from this burn injury. The eye ball was safe and vision was normal. All the burns were superficial in nature. 2. Dusky brown in colour and 30 in number. Left upper eye lid also had a burn injury 10 mm x 5 mm in size. Dusky brown in colour. There was no discharge or oozing from this burn injury. The eye ball was safe and vision was normal. All the burns were superficial in nature. 2. Upper chest:There were 20 burns 3 to 5 mm x 2 to 3 mm in size on the right side of the chest and the lower neck dusky drown in colour oval in shape and all were in superficial in nature with the fluid oozing out. Whereas, injury No.2 was simple in nature caused by some corrosive substance within 24 hours. PW.10 has opined that injury No.1 i.e. face was to be given after healing of the wound but the injured was never brought to him thereafter. Injuries on the person of Ram Rattan could be caused, in the event, he had caught hold of the victim from behind and if acid was poured/thrown on the face of the victim by another person from the front side. Similarly, PW.10 also opined multiple burn injuries 10 in numbers over the middle of back dusky brown in colour 4 of which were bigger in size measuring 3” x 2”. There was no vesicles or oozing or bleeding from any of the burns. No other abrasion was detected on the person of Ravi Dutt. All the burn injuries were simple in nature caused by some corrosive substance within 24 hours. PW.10 in crossexamination has stated that in case a man was holding the injured/victim from behind, if acid like substance is poured on the forehead from the front side by another person then the chances of the person holding the victim from behind suffering acid injuries on his face and chest cannot be ruled out. PW.10 has further stated that if suddenly substance is poured on the forehead and the victim is not aware about it, in that event, the possibility of the person holding the person from behind suffering such injuries as mentioned in the medical certificate is not there. 16. PW.11 MHC Kundan Singh No. 478, PW.12 Constable Sita Ram No. 47, PW.13 Head Constable Bakhtawar Ram No. 318, PW.14 Chatter Singh and PW.15 Narinder Singh (Driver)in due discharge of their duty have supported the prosecution case to the extent they were assigned the role. 17. 16. PW.11 MHC Kundan Singh No. 478, PW.12 Constable Sita Ram No. 47, PW.13 Head Constable Bakhtawar Ram No. 318, PW.14 Chatter Singh and PW.15 Narinder Singh (Driver)in due discharge of their duty have supported the prosecution case to the extent they were assigned the role. 17. PW.16 Ramesh Chand, who joined the investigation, has stated that the rod with which, Ajay Kumar, was beaten had been thrown in front of the Foundry Tank. Accused Virender took them to the Foundry Tank but the rod could not be recovered as there was mud in the tank. The statement of accused Virender alias Tinda was recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act Ex. PP. Thereafter, when rod could not be taken out of the tank, memo of identification Ex. PQ was prepared and signatures, on both the above memos, of the accused were obtained. As per testimony of PW.16, accused Ravi Dutt made a disclosure statement that he has concealed his shirt under the bricks which he had brought at the time of occurrence and contained acid marks vide memo Ex. PR. Accused Ravi Dutt took PW.16 to his house and took out a shirt kept below the bricks. Recovery memo of shirt was Ex. PT. PW.16 in crossexamination reiterated the same version as indicated in examinationinchief. 18. PW.17 Jai Prakash, PW.18 Head Constable Bir Singh and PW.19 Trilok Singh have also supported the prosecution case in due discharge of their official duty. However, their testimony is not very material. 19. PW.20 Dr. Avinash Kumar has stated that he examined the victim / Ajay Kumar and has opined that the victim / Ajay Kumar has lost his eyes / vision. 20. PW.21 Head Constable Hari Singh and PW.23 ASI Dharam Singh in due discharge of their official duty supported the prosecution case. 21. On analysis of the prosecution witnesses and material on record, we notice that PW.2 being the victim / injured had in very natural way has stated about the incident and as per his statement accused Ram Rattan was holding him from behind and accused Ram Dutt had poured acid from front side and in that incident, acid injuries were also sustained to accused Ram Rattan and Ravi Dutt. Thereafter, all the accused respondents including Ram Dutt, Virender alias Tinda and Ram Rattan (now dead)had inflicted multiple injuries on the body of victim e.g. on his knee, wrists, hands with Drat and iron rod. These injuries were being corroborated by the medical evidence as well as the other prosecution witnesses. 22. Learned Additional Advocate General has referred and relied upon several decisions e.g., Dimple Gupta (Minor) versus Rajiv Gupta, AIR 2008 SC 239, Kulwinder Singh versus State of Punjab, AIR 2007 SC 2868, Kalegura Padma Rao & Another versus State of A.P., AIR 2007 SC 1299, State of Punjab versus Hakam Singh, (2005) 7 SCC 408, Krishna Mochi & Others versus State of Bihar, (2002) 6 SCC 81, Leela Ram (Dead) through Duli Chand versus State of Haryana & Another, (1999) 9 SCC 525 and has submitted that since in the facts and circumstances, there is no material discrepancies or contradictions in the testimony of a witness, his evidence cannot be disbelieved merely on the basis of some normal, natural or minor contradictions, inconsistencies, exaggerations, embellishments etc. 23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, from time to time has made the following observations in the cases as indicated below: (i) In State of Maharashtra V. Tulshiram Bhanudas Kamble (2007) 14 SCC 627, it is not necessary to invariably accept the version of the injured witnesses but it is well settled that greater weight has to be given to the testimony of the injured witnesses. (ii). In Ashok Kumar Chaudhary V. State of Bihar (2008) 12 SCC 173, in the facts and circumstances, where trial court as well as High Court found the evidence of all injured witnesses to be trustworthy and reliable and it was recorded that their evidence inspired confidence and stood corroborated by medical evidence, the conviction based on testimony of injured witnesses is justifiable as it is the quality and not the quantity of evidence which matter. (iii) In Dinesh Kumar V. State of Rajasthan (2008) 8 SCC 270, in law, testimony of an injured witness is given importance (Para 11 to 13). (iv). In Animireddy Venkata Ramana V. Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP (2008) 5 SCC 368, where the trial court was found to be in error in discarding the evidence of injured witness in the facts and circumstances when PW-1 was an injured witness. (v). (iv). In Animireddy Venkata Ramana V. Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP (2008) 5 SCC 368, where the trial court was found to be in error in discarding the evidence of injured witness in the facts and circumstances when PW-1 was an injured witness. (v). In Vijay Shankar Shinde V. State of Maharashtra (2008) 2 SCC 670, the evidence of injured witness lends more credence as normally he would not falsely implicate a person thereby protecting the actual assailant. Since the victim Ajay Kumar (PW.2) was an injured witness, as such his testimony is stated to be reliable and on the basis of testimony of PW.2 alone, the prosecution case is said tobe proved. 24. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, from time to time has made the following observations in the cases as indicated below: (i) In Jodhraj Singh V. State of Rajasthan (2007) 15 SCC 294, the conviction can be based on testimony of a single witness (Paras 11 and 13 ). (ii) In Umesh V. State of Maharashtra (2007) 15 SCC 393, in respect of Conduct or reaction of eyewitness, it has been held that it is well settled that every person who witnesses a murder reacts in his own way. There is no set rule of natural reaction. To discard the evidence of a witness on the ground that he did not react in any particular manner is to appreciate the evidence in a wholly unrealistic and unimaginative way ( Para 14 ). (iii) In Tika Ram V. State of M.P. (2007) 15 SCC 760, the evidence of a sole witness can be relied upon to base the conviction of that evidence is reliable and acceptable. (iv) In State of Maharashtra Vs. Prakash Sakha Vasave & others (2009) 11 SCC 193, the eye witnesses are not expected to count the injuries during the assault by several persons. (v) In Munna V. State of M.P. (2009) 1 SCC 202, the testimony of solitary witness is admissible and in case of Munna (supra) not only the evidence of PW4 ( solitary eyewitness) acceptable but it was also corroborated by his immediate disclosure to PW5 and PW8. Therefore, it was observed that it was rightly accepted and acted upon. (vi). In Jarnail Singh Vs. Therefore, it was observed that it was rightly accepted and acted upon. (vi). In Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2009) 3 SCC 391, it is no doubt true that conviction can be based on sole testimony of a solitary eyewitnesses but in order to be the basis of conviction his presence at the place of occurrence has to be natural and his testimony should be strong and reliable and free from any blemish ( Para 26). (vii) In Vishnu V. State of Rajasthan (2009) 10 SCC 477, it has when a person receives injuries in course of occurrence, there can be hardly any doubt regarding his presence at spot of incident. Further, it was observed that injured witnesses would not spare real assailants and falsely involve innocent persons ( Para 34). (viii). In Annareddy Sambasiva Reddy V. State of A.P (2009) 12 SCC 546 regarding Credibility of injured witness, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that PW1 omitting to state in FIR about obtaining loan from a bank, nature of arms possessed by each accused, and manner in which deceased was hacked to death, and others had sustained injuries. Held, would not affect credibility of his evidence since at the time of recording of FIR he was in greviously injured condition, hence it was not expected of him to give a detailed version in that condition and more so, when many accused were involved. Despite that he had named all the accused and his testimony was corroborated by PW3 and medical evidence. (ix) In Pantangi Balarama Venkata Ganesh Vs. State of A.P (2009) 14 SCC 607, the grievously injured witnesses failing to state minutest details, held, was natural ( Paras 22 to 25 and 43). (x) In Jarianl Singh V, State of Punjab (2009) 9 SCC 719, the deposition of injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on basis of major contradictions and discrepancies, as his presence at scene of incident stands established in case it is proved that he suffered the injury during the said incident. Also, in case he is subjected to lengthy cross examination and nothing can be elicited to discard his testimony, it should be relied upon. Also, in case he is subjected to lengthy cross examination and nothing can be elicited to discard his testimony, it should be relied upon. On facts, held, PW4 was an injured witness and he was examined by doctor and his testimony could not be brushed aside lightly, he gave full details of incident as he was present there at that time, hence, evidence of PW4, rightly relied upon by courts below (Paras 28 & 29). Since Ajay Kumar (PW.2) the victim/injured has deposed very emphatically about assault and injuries, as such, the solitary witness PW.2 is sufficient to prove the prosecution case. 25. On analysis of the prosecution witnesses and material on record, we notice minor contradictions and inconsistencies, however, PW.2 (victim / Ajay Kumar) was not supposed to give the description of the incident with mathematic precision. Though, (PW.3) Dinesh Kumar the relative of PW.2 (victim / Ajay Kumar) had seen the incident, but not supported the prosecution case, subsequently, even then, the sole testimony of PW.2 victim / Ajay Kumar being an injured witness, is inspiring confidence. The sole testimonies of victim / Ajay Kumar and the injuries on his person are being corroborated by PW.5 Dr. R.C. Mahindru and PW.6 Dr. S.S. Rathore, as such, the injuries and the manner of these being inflicted are corroborated and a complete chain is formed. All the three accusedrespondents have declined to give their hair for medical test, therefore, such declining on their part could be inferred against them. PW.5 and PW.6 have very clearly indicated that if a person is holding the victim, and acid is poured, in that event, the person holding the victim from behind could be sustained injuries by acid and rightly so on medical examination of the accused persons, the injuries were found on the body of the accused Ram Rattan which were caused during the course of occurrence / incident and injuries on their body were also corroborated by the medical evidence. 26. In our considered view, the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and has become successful to bring home the guilt to the accused, since the complete chain in reference to the assaults and injuries with ocular evidence in view of the sole reliable testimony of injured PW.2 victim / Ajay Kumar, is made out. 27. In our considered view, the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and has become successful to bring home the guilt to the accused, since the complete chain in reference to the assaults and injuries with ocular evidence in view of the sole reliable testimony of injured PW.2 victim / Ajay Kumar, is made out. 27. In view of the facts and circumstances, the order dated 31.12.1996 of learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitting the accusedrespondents, is not legally sustainable, therefore, the same is set aside. Accordingly, the convict shall be given opportunity to be heard on quantum of sentence. Let Non Bailable Warrants be issued, to procure the presence of the convict in the Court, returnable for 22ndSeptember, 2010.