DHARNIDHAR JHA, J.:–On the day of Holi, the four appellants of the two appeals approached the victim Rekha Devi while she was in her house to paint colour on her face and body. She stated in her fardbeyan that the intention of the appellants was not honest and she did not allow them to accomplish their goals. 2. In the evening the lady was sleeping with her mother, namely, Parwatiya Devi(P.W.2) on her cot when these appellants again came to the house and it is specifically alleged that appellant Chandan Rajbanshi poured an oily liquid substance on all over the body of P.W.1 Rekha Devi. Her face, breasts, thigh and other parts of the body were blackened on account of being burnt by the corrosive acid content of the liquid substance. That fact appears testified by P.W.3, Dr. I.Ahmad who had examined her on 15.03.2006 at 8.55 P.M. when the lady was rushed to Sadar Hospital, Nawada for treatment in burnt up condition. The report of the eye surgeon indicated that the lids of her right eye were burnt and the conjunctiva was also congested but cornea was unaffected. However, one fourth parts of the left cornea was burnt by acid. Thus, the lady was deprived of partial visions of her eyes. 3. The learned trial Judge was recording the evidence of the victim Rekha Devi as P.W.1 has noted that she appeared before the court covering her face and body. She removed her saree at the direction of the court and the court found the whole face completely disfigured and bearing scars of injury. She was supporting the allegation that the four appellants came to the house where she was sleeping and appellant Chandan Rajbanshi poured the acidic substance upon her, causing burn injuries, which were found by P.W.3 during her examination by him and which are contained in Ext-1 the injury report. The mother also supported but refused to identify the appellants as persons who had done it. P.W.1 stated that the matter had been compromised, but considering the evidence and the impact of the act, as was recorded by P.W.3 Dr I.Ahmad, what this Court finds is that the act was so serious that no court could accede to allowing the accused and the informant and the victim to enter into compromise even if it were a compoundable offence. The act was too serious to be so lightly countenanced, as was done by the learned lower court and was acquitting the appellants of charge under Section 326 IPC. In my considered view the appellant Chandan Rajbanshi ought to have been convicted under Section 307 IPC and his acquittal under that particular offence by the trial court is not approved by this Court. However, in absence of any appeal from the state this Court cannot do anything otherwise than to uphold the conviction of the appellant Chandan Rajbanshi and sentences passed upon him. 4. So far as the three appellants, namely, Naresh Rajbanshi, Upendra Rajbanshi and Ramautar Rajbanshi are concerned, they of course have been alleged to have come with appellant Chandan Rajbanshi but there is no evidence indicating that there was any prior meeting of mind of the four appellants and further that the four appellants had decided concretely to commit the act which might be committed by any one of them. In absence of the evidence of meeting of mind prior to the commission of the offence, this court extends the benefit of doubt to appellants Naresh Rajbanshi, Upendra Rajbanshi and Ramautar Rajbanshi and, accordingly, acquits them after giving benefit of doubt to them of the charge for which they were convicted. The sentence passed upon each of them is also hereby set aside. Cr.Appeal No.141 of 2007 is allowed. The three appellants who have preferred Cr.Appeal No.141 of 2007 are on bail. They shall stand discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds. The appeal preferred by Chandan Rajbanshi is dismissed.