JUDGMENT MANJULA CHELLUR, J.—These two appeals one by the accused and another by the State are directed against the one and the same judgment dated 12.4.2005 passed by the Fast Track Court VI, Bangalore City in S.C. No. 71/2003. Therefore, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The incident involved in these appeals is yet another brutal and inhuman attack with acid by a frustrated one sided lover on a hapless girl, who refused to reciprocate love, with an intention, the girl whom he could not get, should not marry any one else. 3. The accused Rajesh @ Raja @ Ilu was tried before the Fast Track Court VI, Bangalore City, for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC inter alia alleging that the accused was loving the victim Shruthi, (P.W. 1) who was aged about 16 years, however, P.W. 1 did not reciprocate the same and in this background, at about 3.45 p.m., on 12.8.2002, near BMTC Bus Stop of Corporation Quarters, 46th Cross, 5th Block, Jayanagar, the accused threw acid on the head, face, neck and chest of P.W. 1-Shruthi with an intention to commit her murder as she had refused to marry him and the accused did the said act with the knowledge that, in such circumstances if that act had caused the death of P.W. 1, he would have been guilty of murder and by his act, the accused caused grievous burn injuries to P.W. 1 and thereby attempted to commit murder of P.W. 1 punishable under Section 307 of IPC. According to the prosecution, immediately after the incident the injured was taken to near by Sri Krishna Sevashrama Hospital where she was given first aid treatment. The police were informed about the medico-legal case and on receipt of the information, P.W. 15-H.K. Venkataswamy, Police Inspector of J.P. Nagar Police Station, came to Sri Krishna Sevashrama Hospital, recorded the statement of P.W. 1 as per Ex. P1, based on which, P.W. 15 registered the case in Crime No. 405/2002 for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and took-up investigation. From Sri Krishna Sevashrama Hospital, the injured was taken to St. John’s Hospital and also Victoria Hospital for treatment. P1, based on which, P.W. 15 registered the case in Crime No. 405/2002 for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and took-up investigation. From Sri Krishna Sevashrama Hospital, the injured was taken to St. John’s Hospital and also Victoria Hospital for treatment. However, since beds were not available in those Hospitals, she was admitted to Sri Rajashekar Nursing Home and Meternity Center, J.P. Nagar, Bangalore, where she was treated up to 2.10.2002. During investigation, the accused was apprehended on the same day and since he was also found having sustained some burn injuries, he was examined and treated in Victoria Hospital by P.W. 16-Dr. Vasudeva Rao. During investigation, the Investigating Officer visited the scene of occurrence, drew up spot mahazar, seized the material objects and after completing investigation, laid the charge-sheet. 4. The accused pleaded not guilty for the charge levelled against him and claimed to be tried. In order to bring home the guilt, of the accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 17 and relied on documentary evidence at Exs. P1 to 28 and Material Objects 1 to 6. 5. The defence of the accused was that he and P.W. 1 were loving each other, however, on 12.8.2002, P.W. 1 insisted that he should marry her and since he sought for sometime, she poured acid on herself and thereby she sustained burn injuries. According to him he did not throw acid on P.W. 1, as such, he was not, responsible for the burns sustained by P.W. 1. 6. After hearing both sides and on assessment of oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Judge by the judgment under appeal held the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the said offence. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused has presented Criminal Appeal in 1481/2006. The State has also filed appeal in Criminal Appeal No. 1195/2005 under Section 377 of Cr. P.C. seeking enhancement of sentence. 7. We have heard Sri M.S. Rajendra Prasad, learned Senior counsel appearing for the accused and Sri N.S. Smpangiramaiah, High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State. 8. Sri. The State has also filed appeal in Criminal Appeal No. 1195/2005 under Section 377 of Cr. P.C. seeking enhancement of sentence. 7. We have heard Sri M.S. Rajendra Prasad, learned Senior counsel appearing for the accused and Sri N.S. Smpangiramaiah, High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State. 8. Sri. M.S. Rajendra Prasad, learned Senior Counsel during the course of the argument submitted that, as the accused has already served the period of sentence as ordered by the trial Court and he has already been released from the prison, nothing survives for consideration in the appeal filed by the State. He further submitted that, in the event of this Court considering the appeal filed by the State for enhancement of sentence, it is necessary for this Court to go into the correctness of the conviction recorded by the Court below, It is his further submission that having regard to the various circumstances brought out on record, the defence plea that the victim herself poured acid on her, as such, she herself was responsible for the burns sustained by her is highly probable and acceptable, therefore, the judgment under appeal holding the accused guilty of the charge levelled against him is perverse and hence liable to be set aside. It is also his submission that having regard to the totality of the circumstances brought out on record, there are no grounds to enhance the sentence passed by the Court below. According to learned Senior Counsel, the circumstances of the case do not warrant imposition of the maximum sentence prescribed under Section 307 of IPC, as according to him, the decision of this Court reported in 2006 (5) AIR Kant. R 724 (DB), State of Karnataka vs. Joseph Rodrigues, (Haseena’s case), has no application to the facts of this case. He also submits that the accused was a boy of adolescent age as on the date of the incident; that he appears to have committed the said act without knowing the consequences; that the incident in question having occurred in the year 2002; the accused has severed the sentence imposed by the trial Court; and on account of his good conduct, the accused has earned remission, therefore, at this stage, there are no grounds for enhancing the sentence and committing the accused to the prison once again. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel sought for dismissal of the appeal filed by the State. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel sought for dismissal of the appeal filed by the State. 9. On the other hand, Sri. N.S. Sampangi Ramaiah, learned HCGP, contended that on assessment of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Judge has recorded a finding that the accused, threw acid on P.W. 1, as such, the defence plea put forth that the victim herself was responsible for the burns sustained by her, is neither probable nor acceptable, therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the finding of guilt recorded by the Court below. He further contended that this is a case to which the principles laid down in decision in Haseena’s case squarely applies and having regard to the manner in which the accused committed the offence and the consequences of the said act, interest of justice demands imposition of maximum punishment prescribed under Section 307 of IPC. Therefore, he submits that the sentence ordered by the Court below liable to be enhanced and the accused is required to be sentenced to imprisonment for life. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the points that arise for our consideration are: (i) Whether the judgment of conviction recorded by the Court below calls for interference by this Court? (ii) Whether having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence imposed on the accused is liable to be enhanced? If so, to what extent? 11. As noticed supra, according to the prosecution the incident occurred at about 3.45 p.m., on 12.8.2002 near Bus Stop of Corporation Quarters, 46th Cross, 5th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore, when the victim P.W. 1-Shruthi was waiting for BTS bus, as a result of accused throwing acid on P.W. 1. 12. The evidence of P.W. 15-H.K. Venkataswamy, Police Inspector, J.P. Magar Police Station, establishes that on 12.8.2002 at about 4.00 p.m. he received wireless message from the control room and immediately he went to Sri Krishna Sevashrama, where he saw P.W. 1-Shruthi taking treatment for acid burns and since she was in a position to give statement, he recorded the statement in the presence of the Doctor as per Ex. P1 and upon his return to the Police Station, on the basis of Ex. P1 and upon his return to the Police Station, on the basis of Ex. P1, he registered the case in Crime No. 405/2002 for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC against the accused and submitted the FIR to the Jurisdictional Magistrate as per Ex. P21, thereafter he visited the scene of occurrence, drew up spot mahazar as per Ex. P2, seized from the scene of occurrence acid mixed mud, sample mud, half burnt cloth pieces of the apparels of the victim and a plastic can and with the help of the photographer, he took photographs of the scene of occurrence. As per the endorsement made on the FIR Ex. P21, the FIR was received by the Jurisdictional Magistrate at 9.00 p.m. on the same day alongwith Ex. P1. Having regard to the time at which incident stated to have occurred and the purported time of registering the case, we find no delay in either lodging of complaint or the FIR reaching the jurisdictional Magistrate. As per the contents of Ex. P1, on 12.8.2002 at about 3.45 p.m., the complainant was waiting for the city bus and at that time, the accused came there on a TVS moped and threw acid on her head and face, as a result of which, she sustained burn injuries. According to her, the incident occurred between 3.45 and 4.00 p.m. Ex. P5 is the Wound Certificate issued by Sri Krishna Sevashrama Hospital and according to its contents, the injured was brought to the said hospital at 4.05 p.m. on 12.8.2002 with history of acid attack by Rajesh. P.W. 6-Dr. Kalpana in her evidence has stated that Shruthi, who had sustained burn injuries in the acid attack was brought to Sri Krishna Sevashrama Hospital for treatment and she was given first aid treatment only, as the said hospital had no ICU facility, she referred Shruthi for treatment to St. John’s hospital. According to her, Ex. P5 is the wound certificate issued by the said hospital. There is no serious cross-examination to P.W. 6 and P.W. 15 with regard to the time at which the incident occurred and the victim reaching the hospital for treatment. At the earliest point of time when the injured was brought to the hospital, the name of the assailant was reported as Rajesh, the accused. In the complaint-Ex. P1, the overt acts of the accused have been stated. Ex. At the earliest point of time when the injured was brought to the hospital, the name of the assailant was reported as Rajesh, the accused. In the complaint-Ex. P1, the overt acts of the accused have been stated. Ex. P3 is the wound certificate issued by Rajashekar Hospital and Maternity Center, which indicates that P.W. 1 was treated as inpatient in the said hospital from 12.8.2002 to 2.10.2002 for burns she had sustained. P.W. 5-Dr. M.S. Venkatesh, Plastic Surgeon in Rajashekar Hospital and Maternity Center has stated in his evidence about the treatment given to P.W. 1. There is absolutely no cross-examination to P.W. 5 with regard to the injuries suffered by P.W. 1 and the nature of the treatment given to her. P.W. 1-Shruthi in her evidence has also stated about the nature of injuries sustained by her and also the treatment taken by her in different hospitals. As noticed supra, the very defence of the accused was that the victim herself poured acid on her and thereby she sustained burns. Thus, the accused has not disputed the fact that P.W. 1 sustained burns on 12.8.2002. Thus, the prosecution has satisfactorily proved that P.W. 1 sustained burns between 3.45 and 4.00 p.m. on 12.8.2002 near BMTC Bus Stop in J.P. Nagar. 13. The next question to be considered is, whether the accused was responsible for the burns sustained by P.W. 1? P.W. 1 in her oral evidence has reiterated the contents of the complaint lodged by her. According to her, while she was waiting near the bus stop, the accused came there and threw acid on her. It is her say that every day the accused was following her whenever she was going out of the house and was telling her that he loves her and that she should marry him. According to her, she refused to many him and she was not loving him. According to her, it is on account of her refusal to love him and marry him, the accused threw acid on her to see that she shall not marry any other person. In the cross-examination of P.W. 1, it is suggested to her that she was also loving him and there was exchange of notes and she was preparing notes for him and that she was insisting him to marry her. In the cross-examination of P.W. 1, it is suggested to her that she was also loving him and there was exchange of notes and she was preparing notes for him and that she was insisting him to marry her. It is further suggested to her in the cross-examination that, on 12.8.2002, she had asked the accused to come near the bus stop at about 3.45 p.m. and that she was waiting near the bus stand for the accused and at that time, she carried the acid bottle. It is further suggested to her that when the accused came there, she insisted him to marry her and since the accused sought for some time to think, she herself poured acid on her and sustained burns. P.W. 1 has denied all those suggestions. P.W. 1 is the victim and her evidence commands acceptance in the absence of any circumstance to disbelieve her testimony. In the cross-examination, nothing is brought out on record to disbelieve her evidence. Her evidence is consistent with the contents of the complaint. The fact that the accused was loving her is accepted by the accused. Having regard to the tenor of cross-examination of P.W. 1, she was also loving the accused. Therefore, there was no reasons for discarding the testimony of P.W. 1 with regard to the manner in which she sustained burns. The question is, as to whether the defence plea that the victim herself poured acid on her and sustained burns, is acceptable? If this plea of the accused were to be accepted, then there was no reasons for the accused sustaining burns. However, the evidence of P.W. 15 would indicate that on the same day, when the accused was produced before him at about 8.00 p.m., he noticed burns over the hands, abdomen and other parts of the person of the accused and immediately, he sent the accused to Victoria Hospital for treatment. Of course, the accused has cross-examined this witness in this regard suggesting that the accused had not sustained any burns on his person and with the connivance of the Doctor, false evidence has been created. The witness has denied those suggestions. Of course, the accused has cross-examined this witness in this regard suggesting that the accused had not sustained any burns on his person and with the connivance of the Doctor, false evidence has been created. The witness has denied those suggestions. P.W. 16-P. Vasudeva Rao has stated that on 12.8.2009 at 9.35 p.m. the patient by name Rajesh was brought to the casuality of Victoria Hospital by the A.S.I. of J.P. Nagar Police Station with the history that the accused sustained burn injuries as a result of acid. According to him, the accused himself told him that at the time of throwing acid over his lover Shruthi at about 4.00 p.m., he sustained injuries. According to P.W. 16, on examination he noticed the following injuries on the person of accused. (i) Acid urns on the right upper limb and left upper limb, the extent of burns on the right upper limb was 0.5% and the extent of burns on the left upper limb was 1%. Over the trunk on the front portion, the acid burns were to the extent of 5% and there were acid burns on back of the trunk. (ii) Burns were also found on the left forearm black in colour and the extent of said burns was 0.1%. The said burns were due to hot spout three days earlier to examination and the said burns were to the extent of 0.1%. According to him, the patient was referred to the burns ward for further treatment. Ex. P28 is the true copy of the accident register extract in respect of the treatment of the accused. This witness has been cross-examined, but he has denied all the suggestions put to him in the cross-examination. We find no reason to discard the evidence of P.W. 16. This witness being the Doctor working in the Government Hospital has no reason to create false evidence against the accused. Therefore, the evidence of P.W. 16 clearly establishes the presence of acid burns on the person of the accused. The presence of acid burns on the person of the accused is a strong circumstance to discard the defence plea. The conduct of the accused also assumes greater importance. If according to the accused, P.W. 1 who is his lover poured acid on herself, the immediate conduct of the accused should have been to remove her to the nearby hospital for treatment. The conduct of the accused also assumes greater importance. If according to the accused, P.W. 1 who is his lover poured acid on herself, the immediate conduct of the accused should have been to remove her to the nearby hospital for treatment. However, it is not his say that he shifted her to the hospital. On the other hand, the evidence on record indicates that the accused ran away from the place. This conduct on the part of the accused also falsifies his defence plea. The evidence of P.W. 2-Kandaswamy, an independent witness also corroborates the evidence of P.W. 1 with regard to the accused throwing acid on her. Having regard to the evidence on record, we are of the considered opinion that the Court below is justified in holding that the accused threw acid on P.W. 1 between 3.45 and 4.00 p.m. on 12.8.2002 near BMTC Bus Stop, J.P. Nagar, and on account of this, P.W. 1 sustained burns on her head, face, neck, chest, etc. 14. The Court below having regard to the manner in which the accused threw acid on P.W. 1 and the motive behind the said act, has held that the act committed by the accused is punishable under Section 307 of IPC. As noticed supra, the evidence on record clearly establishes that the accused was loving P.W. 1. Having regard to the evidence on record, the said love appears to be one sided as P.W. 1 was not reciprocating the same. It is in this background, the accused threw acid on her to see that she should not marry any one else, as she refused to love him. The photographs of P.W. 1 produced on record would clearly indicate the consequences of the said act committed by the accused. Her life now had become highly miserable and she has to endure this ordeal throughout the rest of her life. As per the evidence of forensic expert, the acid used was concentrated Sulfuric Acid which is a highly dangerous substance. The part of the body chosen to throw acid was head, face, neck, chest, etc. 15. Her life now had become highly miserable and she has to endure this ordeal throughout the rest of her life. As per the evidence of forensic expert, the acid used was concentrated Sulfuric Acid which is a highly dangerous substance. The part of the body chosen to throw acid was head, face, neck, chest, etc. 15. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the learned Sessions Judge is justified in holding that the accused committed the act of throwing acid on P.W. 1 in a hid to commit her murder, as such, he is guilty of offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. We find no perversity or illegality in the judgment of conviction recorded by the Court below. The findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge are sound and reasonable having regard to the evidence on record, as such, it does not call for interference by this Court. 16. The next question required to be considered is, whether the sentence imposed by the Court below deserves to be enhanced? The offence under Section 307 IPC is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and fine and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life or imprisonment of either description, for a term which may extend to ten years and fine. 17. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Joseph Rodrigues (Haseena’s case) (supra) had an occasion to consider almost identical case of acid attack on a hapless girl and after finding the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC, this Court sentenced the accused therein to imprisonment for life and also to pay compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the victim. The relevant observations made therein read as under: “The imposition of appropriate punishment is the manner in which the Court responds to the Society’s cry for justice against the criminal. Justice demands that the Courts should impose punishment befitting the crime so that the Courts reflect, public abhorrence of the crime. 2,00,000/- to the victim. The relevant observations made therein read as under: “The imposition of appropriate punishment is the manner in which the Court responds to the Society’s cry for justice against the criminal. Justice demands that the Courts should impose punishment befitting the crime so that the Courts reflect, public abhorrence of the crime. The Court, must not only keep in view the rights of the criminal but also the rights of the victim of the crime and the society at large while considering the imposition of Appropriate punishment.” In the present case, the accused for the reasons best known to him alone, secures the deadly corrosive substance, namely, concentrated sulfuric acid, brought the same in a plastic can and after meeting the victim near the bus stop, he threw the said acid on her head, face, neck and chest. From the evidence on record, it is clear that on account of this act of the accused, the victim has suffered permanent loss of vision in the right eye and her right breast has been completely burnt. The act committed by the accused has made her face hideous. She was a young and fair girl aged about 16 or 17 years as on the date of the incident. Now the mere look of her face indicates that it needs no great imagination to feel, not only her physical but also mental trauma. In the present situation certainly she is unable to come out of the house and walk in the streets. She has to endure this ordeal during the rest of her life. This has deprived all pleasures in her life. She has lost permanently all chances of getting married. In addition to this, the parents of the victim were also made to undergo great amount of agony, trauma and financial loss. No doubt, as contended by the learned Senior Counsel, the accused was also aged about 17 or 18 years at the time of incident, as such, it could be said that he was a boy of adolescent age. However, on that ground, it cannot be said that he has committed the act without knowing the consequences. It cannot be said that a person throwing concentrated sulfuric acid on another does not know the consequences thereof. Of course, the accused appears to have now been released from the prison after serving the sentence ordered by the trial Court. However, on that ground, it cannot be said that he has committed the act without knowing the consequences. It cannot be said that a person throwing concentrated sulfuric acid on another does not know the consequences thereof. Of course, the accused appears to have now been released from the prison after serving the sentence ordered by the trial Court. However, on this basis, we find no grounds to show leniency in the matter of imposition of sentence. In our considered opinion, the sentiments expressed by this Court in Haseena’s case (supra), would aptly apply to the present case on. hand. Even in that case, the accused pleaded for leniency almost on the same grounds that he being a young person after coming out of jail wants to settle in life. This Court while considering such submission, posed a question to the accused therein as to what about the victim and observed that a young beautiful girl who has now to carry all along her entire life, the hideous face, who has lost hopes forever of leading a normal life including loss of a chance of marriage, the revered dream of every girl, viz., motherhood, for no fault of her and this is only because of the act of the accused. After observing so, this Court ordered imprisonment for life. 18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, we are of the opinion that in this case also the accused is liable to be sentenced for the maximum period of imprisonment prescribed under Section 307 of IPC. In our opinion, the trial Court has shown greater leniency in favour of the accused without considering the sufferings of the victim on account of the acts committed by the accused. In this view of the matter, in our opinion, the interest of justice would be met by sentencing the accused to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- . At this stage, it is necessary to note that according to the submission of the learned Senior Counsel, huge money running to several lakhs has been collected towards the treatment of the victim and, therefore, the victim does not need any additional amount for her treatment. We find no force in this contention. At the first place, there is no material on record to substantiate this contention. We find no force in this contention. At the first place, there is no material on record to substantiate this contention. Assuming that some kind hearted persons have liberally contributed for the treatment of the victim, that does not absolve the liability of the accused to compensate the victim for the injuries caused by him. Therefore, we reject, the said contention. 19. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the accused in Criminal Appeal No. 1481/2006 is hereby dismissed. The appeal filed by the State in Criminal Appeal No. 1195/2005 is allowed. The judgment of conviction recorded by the Court below convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC is hereby affirmed. In modification of the order of sentence passed by the trial Court, the accused is sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and also to pay compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs) to the victim-P.W. 1 Shruthi in addition to the fine ordered by the trial Court. In default to pay compensation, the accused shall undergo R.I. for three years. The accused is entitled for the benefit of set-off of the period of sentence already undergone, as per Section 428 of Cr. P.C. The accused shall now surrender forthwith before the trial Court and upon such surrender, the learned Sessions Judge shall commit him to prison to serve the sentence as ordered by this Court. If the accused fails to surrender, the learned Sessions Judge shall take necessary steps to secure his presence and to commit him to prison.