JUDGMENT Akhilesh Chandra, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. The solitary appellant has preferred this appeal against his conviction for the offence under Sections 341, 307 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code and respectively sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years, but no separate sentence was awarded for the offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, however, both the sentences were to run concurrently, as awarded vide judgment dated 29th March, 2011 by learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhojpur at Ara, in Session Trial No. 141/04 arising out of Piro P.S. Case No. 202 of 2001, G.R. No. 2793/2001. 3. The prosecution case in short as reveal from the fardbeyan (Exhibit-1/1) of Saryu Prasad Singh (PW 5) recorded on 2.12.2001 at about 10.00 a.m. at his village by the Officer Incharge of Piro Police Station is that yesterday evening (01.12.2001) at about 7.30 a.m. while his daughter-in-law Dharam Devi (PW 7), grand daughter (PW 6) the victim Indu Devi and his wife Ramjharo Devi (not examined) while returning after meeting with natural call arrived near the house of one Kashi Nath Sharma (not examined) where the appellant got himself concealed and suddenly threw acid kept in a mug upon the informant and started fleeing from there but could be identified by all the ladies in moon light and on their cry he along with others arrived at the place of occurrence found the victim restless due to injury caused on her face, eyes, hands and shawl was also burnt and immediately his son Raj Kishore Singh (PW 4) and Ravindra Kumar Singh (PW 1) took the informant to Arrah Hospital and motive behind the occurrence as stated is roughly two years ago the appellant with intend to commit theft had trespassed in dalan caught red-handed and was assaulted but under pressure of villagers no case was instituted. The above fardbeyan was recorded in presence of co-villager Yogendra Singh (not examined). The above fardbeyan was recorded in presence of co-villager Yogendra Singh (not examined). The police instituted the case during investigation also received fardbeyan of the victim (Exhibit-1) recorded at P.M.C.H. Rajendra Surgical Block, R.S. Ward, Bed No. 56 at 12.15 hours on 22.12.2001 by A.S.I.R. Singh (not examined) of Pirbahore Police Station, Patna, who not only stated the facts as narrated in Exhibit-1/1, but added that she is aged about 18 years recently married in same year but had not gone to her in-laws house she also included with her companion one Bhagmati Devi (chacheri chachi PW 8) and apart from the appellant his grand mother was also there and at the instigation of grand mother Fulbaso Devi (an accused summoned under Section 319, Cr PC but ultimately acquitted), she further stated that the appellant had also threatened to shot at her if she cries and had also shown pistol to her, and immediately thereafter from Ara she was referred to P.M.C.H. Patna, where she - is under treatment and was unable to speak so. Earlier no statement could be recorded and she put her L.T.I. since she is not in a position to see from her eyes. This statement was recorded in presence of Raj Kishore Singh (PW - 4) and Kameshwar Singh (not examined). Police after concluding the investigation submitted charge-sheet initially against appellant and subsequently exonerated Fulbaso Devi finding no material against her. 4. However, after taking cognizance, charge under Sections 341, 327 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code was framed and commenced on 6th October, 2004, wherein initially five witnesses PW 1 Ravindra Kumar Yadav examined on 27.12.2004, PW 2 Heera Lal examined on 7.12.2005, PW 3 Sanjeev Kumar examined on 23.2.2005, PW 4 Indu Devi examined on 3.6.2005 and PW 5 Md. Sallauddin examined on 28.6.2005 who declared hostile. 5. Thereafter on prayer of prosecution made under Section 319, Cr PC appellant's grand mother Fulbaso Devi was also summoned. Charge for the offence under Sections 341, 307/34 and 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code on 7th October, 2005 was framed against her, thereafter prosecution examined altogether ten witnesses including PW 1 to PW 4 earlier examined and discharged except Md. Sallauddin who was earlier declared hostile. Charge for the offence under Sections 341, 307/34 and 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code on 7th October, 2005 was framed against her, thereafter prosecution examined altogether ten witnesses including PW 1 to PW 4 earlier examined and discharged except Md. Sallauddin who was earlier declared hostile. PW 1 Ravindra Prasad Singh (earlier examined as PW 1), PW 2 Sanjeev Kumar (earlier examined as PW 3), PW 3 Heera Lal Yadav (earlier examined as PW 2), PW 4 Raj Kishore Singh, PW 5 Surya Prasad Singh (informant), PW 6 Indu Devi, the victim (earlier examined as PW 4), PW 7 Dharam Devi, PW 8 Bhagmati Devi, PW 9 Ravindra Kumar Singh, Investigating Officer and PW 10 Dr. Umesh Prasad Sinha, and also produced following documents :- Exhibit-1 Fardbeyan of Indu Kumari. Exhibit-2 Signature of Suraj Pd. Singh on fardbeyan. Exhibit-1/1 Fardbeyan of Suraj Pd. Singh. Exhibit-3 Injury. Exhibit-4 Prescription of Bilas Netralaya of Indu Devi dated 10.1.2002. Exhibit-4/1 O.P.D. Card of Indu Devi AIIMS. 6. After close of prosecution case, on behalf of defence, four witnesses were examined they are D.W.1 Bihari Singh. D.W.2 Chetan Sharma. D.W.3 Ram Raj Sharma and D.W.4 Sunil Kumar and also produced documents exhibited which are as follows :- Exhibit - A- Prescription of Dr. S. Baleshi of 19.1.2000. Exhibit - A/1- Medical certificate of Dr. S. Baleshi dated 13.4.2004. Exhibit -B- Prescription of Dr. H.K. Singh dated 13.6.2003 in favour of Smt. Phulbaso Devi. Exhibit -C- Prescription of Dr. Manoj Kumar Ranjan of Phulbaso Devi-two page. Exhibit -D- Admission & Discharge certificate of Guruhanak Hospital Ranchi of Phulbaso Devi. Exhibit -E- Prescription of Dr. Mangtoo Ram dated 19.9.2005. 7. And on consideration of the materials available on record the trial Court while acquitting the female accused i.e. grand mother of the appellant and finding the appellant guilty convicted and sentenced him in the manner aforestated giving rise to present appeal. 8. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that apart from the victim two female witnesses PWs 7 and 8 have for the first time been examined in Court they were never examined by the police for reasons best known to the Investigating Officer. 8. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that apart from the victim two female witnesses PWs 7 and 8 have for the first time been examined in Court they were never examined by the police for reasons best known to the Investigating Officer. In the earliest statement the informant who is none else than grand father of the victim has not named the female accused and introduced PW 8 Bhagmati Devi, but, subsequently she has also been introduced by the victim just to increase number of alleged eye-witnesses of the occurrence. No sign of acid throwing etc. was found at the place of occurrence. No shawl or other wearing apparels of the victim were produced either before police or during trial and there is also no explanation for the delay in lodging the F.I.R. The learned counsel for the appellant however fairly conceded that though the testimony of the witnesses examined prior to summoning female accused could have been considered against the appellant and only for added accused their fresh examination was required, but in fact, there is practically no difference in their testimonies. Hence, the learned counsel did not intend to make any submission on their earlier statements during trial and further the defence (oral and documentary) both are only in relation to female accused who had already been acquitted. Hence, now there is no relevancy of such material so far appellant is concerned. 9. On the other hand learned counsel representing the informant and Additional Public Prosecutor both while supporting the findings of the Court below submitted that the victim has suffered a lot, lost her one eye completely another is badly weaken and further in her youth she has been deserted by newly husband and in-laws, it is more torturous than death so there should be no leniency towards the appellant. 10. Out of ten prosecution witnesses PW 1 Ravindra Prasad Singh states about his arrival at the place of occurrence on alarm raised by the females found the victim restless and Dharam Devi (PW 7), Ramjharo Devi (not examined), Bhagmati Devi (PW 8) were crying and they said and Dharam Devi intimated that at the instigation of female accused the appellant threw acid upon the victim causing burns on her face, right wrist, left eye and right eye also badly affected, further, shawl and sweater etc. of the victim was also burnt. of the victim was also burnt. He is nothing but a hearsay witness on the point of occurrence got information from Dharam Devi, further states on cries of females. Prior to him Surya Prasad Singh, informant (PW 5) and Heera Lal Yadav (PW 3) only had arrived. Further, he states having no talk with the victim Indu Devi rather getting details of occurrence only from her mother Dharam Devi (PW 7), and also found ditch on left eye. He expressed his inability whether anyone immediately rushed to police station with village chowkidar, he is also unable to state whether mother of the victim was examined by police or not but he also stated for a substantial period with the victim at P.M.C.H. and denied the suggestion that she was not admitted and stayed at P.M.C.H. for more than 21 to 22 days. 11. PW 2 Sanjeev Kumar, brother of the victim also arrived on alarm and could see the injuries sustained by the victim and details of occurrence he could know from her mother PW 7 Dharam Devi. His father and Ravindra Singh (PW 1) brought her to hospital at Arrah, from where she was referred to P.M.C.H. where since there was no proper medication his father shifted the victim to one private nursing home, from where she was referred to Delhi. He further states complete loss of left eye and major loss of sight in right eye and her desertion by husband and in-laws. In spite of lengthy cross-examination there is nothing to challenge loss of one eye and loss of sight of another. He expressed his inability whether apparels of victim could be produced before police or not or whether other females were examined or not. He further states about earlier occurrence of unsuccessful attempt of committing theft by appellant and assault etc. About treatment of the victim also he got information from his father and grand father. 12. PW 3 is Heera Lal Singh who has also stated what earlier witnesses have said. In cross-examination states about the details of place of occurrence and nearby land where the females used to go to meet their natural calls as per routine. 13. About treatment of the victim also he got information from his father and grand father. 12. PW 3 is Heera Lal Singh who has also stated what earlier witnesses have said. In cross-examination states about the details of place of occurrence and nearby land where the females used to go to meet their natural calls as per routine. 13. PW 4 is Raj Kishore Singh, father of the victim has stated the version recorded in Exhibit-1, but getting information about the occurrence after arrival on alarm finding his daughter restless through his wife Dharam Devi, brought her to Sadar Hospital, Arrah, where finding gravity of situation immediately victim was referred to P.M.C.H. where she was brought through Ambulance roughly after months treatment when condition was not satisfactorily improved. He consulted other doctors and got her examined by a private doctor Mangtu Ram, from where she was referred to AIIMS at Delhi where also she was treated for about a month during which left eye was taken off, only thereafter there could be any improvement in right eye. He further states about her desertion by husband and in-laws due to such injuries and dephasing of face. In cross-examination, he has given details of the manner in which she was brought to Arrah and P.M.C.H. after two or three days. He came back to his village to manage money and his father, the informant, had returned from Arrah to village by same Jeep, whereon they came to Arrah. In para 8 he says that front portion of full sweater, woolen shawl was also burnt, but inner apparels such as blouse was not affected, consequently a bit sweater and chadar etc. were taken of at Patna. He further says such garments were shown to police but no paper was prepared. In cross-examination, para 10, he asserts entire face was affected by the acid and during treatment gradually burris were cured. In para 13 he says about his stay at Delhi during the course of treatment for about a month and further he• admits the doctor at P.M.C.H. were not permitting to get her examined by another doctor so just by informing the doctor he brought the victim to private clinic. He was further re-examined and proved Exhibit-4 the prescription of Dr. Mangtu Ram and AIIMS at Delhi at Exhibit-4/1. In cross-examination he says the victim remained at P.M.C.H. till 2nd January, 2002. He was further re-examined and proved Exhibit-4 the prescription of Dr. Mangtu Ram and AIIMS at Delhi at Exhibit-4/1. In cross-examination he says the victim remained at P.M.C.H. till 2nd January, 2002. He brought her since there was no proper treatment and at AIIMS she was treated in O.P.D. where one eye was taken of. He further denied filing of xerox copy of the certificate said to be issued by AIIMS, hence it was marked as Exhibit-X for identification. But he asserts himself as Electro Homeopathic practitioner and denied the suggestion that none of the doctors found complete loss of sight rather doctor Mangtu Ram at Patna prescribed opticals and at AIIMS she was referred only for repairs of eye lid and the certificate issued from there indicates loss of sight only for 30%. 14. PW 5 is Surya Prasad Singh the informant, a hearsay witness, as regard to occurrence proved his signature (Exhibit-2) on fardbeyan and in cross-examination, he admits could not see females of his family going outside to meet natural calls but arrived at the place of occurrence only on their alarm and states getting information from his daughter-in-law Dharam Devi (PW 7). Further in para 5 he states sweater and shawl of the victim was there on her body and within ten to fifteen minutes of the occurrence they proceeded for her treatment. He accompanied till Arrah hospital where they could reach within around 21/2 and within 1/2 hours, thereafter she was referred to P.M.C.H. through retumed to village. He has further stated about earlier incident. This witness has explained alleged delay of few hours in lodging the information before the police. It is quite natural for the family to first get the victim treated only thereafter 'in the natural course one may think about lodging the case on taking the offender at task. 15. All these five witnesses discussed above are undisputedly hearsay witnesses so far manner of the occurrence is concerned, and they are also consistent about getting the information in detail through Dharam Devi (PW 7) who at the same time was not examined by police under Section 161 of Cr PC, but she has said nothing more than what the victim has stated in her fardbeyan (Exhibit-1), and in deposition during trial either as PW 4 or as PW 6 after joining the female accused in trial. Though, in cross-examination, she states getting her statement before the Investigating Officer, but why he has not mentioned the same in the case diary, naturally she is unable to explain. Here one thing may be stated that right from earliest statement of the informant she is named as one of the eye-witness and the person giving information about the occurrence to the informant and others. It was incumbent upon the Investigating Officer to record her statement and if he failed to discharge his duty prosecution cannot suffer. 16. By placing reliance upon the decision in Rotash v. State of Rajasthan, 2007 (2) East Cr C 78 (SC) : 2006 (13) SCALE 186 and Acharaparambath Pradeepan and Anr. v. State of Kerala, 2007 (2) East Cr C 40 (SC) : 2006 (13) SCALE 600, the Apex Court in a case of Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P., reported in 2008 (1) East Cr C 151 (SC) : 2007 (3) PLJR 29 SC has clearly observed in para 12 which reads as such : "12.........it is also well-known that deficiency in investigation shall not stand in the way of the Court in arriving at a finding of guilt if it is otherwise found to have been proved." 17. In the case of Manoj Singh v. State of Bihar, reported in 2008 (1) PLJR 53 : 2008 (4) East Cr C 306 (Pat) also a bench of this Court has stated in para 15 which reads as such : "15...........It is well established in law that illegalities or irregularities committed by the police in course of investigation will not stand in the way of the criminal Court in doing justice on the basis of evidence recorded in course of the trial. Learned counsel appearing for the State has cited may judgment on this point but this proposition of law is so well settled that it requires no further discussion." 18. PW 8 is Bhagmati Devi who stated what PW 7 has said. No doubt in earliest statement (Exhibit 1/1) her name does not find figure. She also states about her making statement before Investigating Officer and unable to explain how and why it was not recorded even statement of this witness is ignored. It makes little difference since she has said nothing more what already has been stated by the victim, her mother and other witnesses deriving knowledge from them. 19. She also states about her making statement before Investigating Officer and unable to explain how and why it was not recorded even statement of this witness is ignored. It makes little difference since she has said nothing more what already has been stated by the victim, her mother and other witnesses deriving knowledge from them. 19. Relying on Ramji Surjya Padvi and another v. State of Maharashtra, (1983) 3 SCC 629 ; Anil Phukan v. State of Assam, 1993 (2) PLJR 140 (SC) : (1993) 3 SCC 282 and Sewaka Alias Ramsewak v. State of M.P. and another, (2001) 10 SCC 1 : 2002 (1) East Cr C 53 (SC), the Apex Court in case of Mahendra Singh (supra) in para 11 it is held : "11. It is now a well settled principle of law that conviction can be based on the basis of the testimony of a sole eyewitness." 20. PW6 is Indu Devi the victim has stated what contents in her fardbeyan (Exhibit-1) further, due to injuries she became senseless and when she was in a position to state her statement recorded and in spite of prolong treatment, burning of eyes was not reduced so she was examined by Dr. Mangtu Ram where it was detected that left eye was completely damaged and if sight of right eye is to be saved, treatment at AIIMS, New Delhi, is required. Accordingly, on reference she was brought from there where left eye was taken of and treatment continued for right eye which also has short sighted. Further she has asserted about the injuries faced resulting desertion by her husband and admits her fardbeyan which has also been proved as Exhibit-1. In cross-examination she has stated about the details of occurrence at place of occurrence and further in para 7 she says the moment she came at the place where lane joins road appellant came in front of her took up pistol and throw acid due to sudden act she could not get any chance to escape naturally she expressed her inability to state who arrived at what intervals on alarm. In para 9 she states in the way she lost her senses and could recover only on 21st December, 2001 when her statement was recorded. In para 9 she states in the way she lost her senses and could recover only on 21st December, 2001 when her statement was recorded. Much argument was advanced about long period of lost of sense without any support from anyone but one may assume the miseries and pain faced by the victim who if not was in a position to speak the details. There is nothing wrong while stating she was not in her senses. In para 10 she asserts she has regular complain of burning of eyes and there was no improvement. She also states about treatment at AIIMS where it was diagnosed than left eye is completely damaged it was taken of by surgery and she is unable to say about the papers. Even during examination as is evident from para 13 she has shown injuries on right wrist. There appears nothing from statement of this witness showing false implication of the appellant who as per prosecution witness including the informant just in order to take revenge of his earlier humiliation and assault during an unsuccessful attempt to commit theft inflicted such injuries upon the victim only after her marriage and caused permanent suffering which cannot be cured. 21. PW 9 Ravindra Kumar Yadav Investigating Officer and the then Officer Incharge of Piro Police Station, proved Exhibit 1/1, investigated the place of occurrence, went to Arrah for injury report, learned about she being already referred to P.M.C.H. received fardbeyan of the victim from Pirbahore police station and submitted charge-sheet. The appellant was apprehended from his own house and submitted charge-sheet against him after receiving injury report from the Court of Session Judge, Arrah. 22. Last witness PW 10 is Dr. Umesh Prasad Sinha, Associate Professor, P.M.C.H. Patna, Eye Department, who proved the injury report Exhibit 3 and stated the details of injuries on the victim : A referred case from Sadar Hospital, Arrah vide Reg. No. 4921 dated 1.12.2001 which is attached in B.H.T. following findings are noted on BHT. On face blackening of skin + ocdems + blebs. (1) LE-corneal burn + conjunctival burn + media hezy lids burn + vision left eys = fe 6ft. (2) RE corneal burn + conjuctival burn + cogstic + Media hezy lids burn + vision RE fe 10ft. The patient transferred to Plastic Surgery Deptt. P.M.C.H. Patna, on 20.12.2001. On face blackening of skin + ocdems + blebs. (1) LE-corneal burn + conjunctival burn + media hezy lids burn + vision left eys = fe 6ft. (2) RE corneal burn + conjuctival burn + cogstic + Media hezy lids burn + vision RE fe 10ft. The patient transferred to Plastic Surgery Deptt. P.M.C.H. Patna, on 20.12.2001. Examined there vide PLOPD-2726 dated 20.12.2001 and was kept there vide LDPS/25 in R.S. Ward in Plastic Surgery indoor of P.M.C.H. under Dr. K.N. Tiwary's Unit. Patient left the Hospital without medical advice on 2.1.2002. Nothing specific findings are noted by Plastic Surgeon on BHT except LAMA on 2.1.2002 on 10.12.2001 vision is A/9-within 36 hrs. VR = fe 6 metre VL-fe 4 metre and same on 20.12.2001. N/9-Injury No. 2 is simple in nature O-'S' caused by acid burn and injury No. 1 opinion is reserved as pts. LAMA and S caused by acid burn. 23. The doctor found both the injuries were simple in nature but about injury No. 1 opinion was reserved as patient left without medical advise, but this much is undisputed that the victim remained for treatment on being referred from Arrah at P.M.C.H. as Indoor Patient till 2nd January, 2002 after being admitted on 2nd December, 2001 and during the period of 20th December, 2001 she had not transferred to plastic surgery department of P.M.C.H. This goes to show that before leaving hospital even as LAMA she remained there for a month and was not completely free from the injuries suffered by her and here Sections 319 and 320 of the Indian Penal Code come into play which read as such : "319. Hurt.-Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt. 320. Grievous hurt.-The following kinds of hurt only are designated as "grievous":- First - Emasculation. Secondly - Permanent privation of the sight of either eye. Thirdly - Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear. Fourthly - Privation of any member or joint. Fifthly - Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint. Sixthly - Permanent disfiguration of the head or face. Seventhly - Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth. Eighthly - Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits." 24. Sixthly - Permanent disfiguration of the head or face. Seventhly - Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth. Eighthly - Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits." 24. And from the plain reading of the above, one may arrive at the conclusion even on only ground of time lapsed during treatment that the victims suffered grievous injury and undisputedly it was caused due to acid. No doubt, wearing apparels of the victim appears not seized by the police and as per the statement of prosecution witnesses she remained under same apparels till arrival at P.M.C.H. Patna, and it is also statement of the witnesses that no injury was sustained by her on chest etc. and the protective part i.e. wearing apparels etc. are since not produced. It would not be safe to hold there was any attempt made to kill her by causing injuries on chest etc. but she has suffered the burns on wrist also which was shown in Court and remained undisputed. The medical report (Exhibit-3) at least establishes the victim suffered injuries on her eyes. 25. Since it was argued that there is nothing to show her one eye was taken of at AIIMS, New Delhi, due to being damaged in some occurrence as neither any doctor either Dr. Mangtu Ram and his associates or from AIIMS, was examined, simply the prescriptions are on record since writings were proved. 26. True it is, none of the doctors have examined, but right from beginning the prosecution witnesses have said about her treatment by private doctor at Patna and at AIIMS after she left P.M.C.H. Patna, where in spite of remaining more than a month under treatment there was no satisfactory improvement and even during course of examination, none of the witnesses including the victim in face of Exhibit Nos. 4 and 4/1 has ever been challenged that she was not treated at these two places or she has not lost her left eye. Rather the trend of cross-examination and suggestion that though she was treated there but about findings by Dr. 4 and 4/1 has ever been challenged that she was not treated at these two places or she has not lost her left eye. Rather the trend of cross-examination and suggestion that though she was treated there but about findings by Dr. Mangtu Ram there is a bit difference and even during cross-examination of PW 4 Raj Kishore Singh, father of the victim, the defence has got xerox copy of a certificate issued from AIIMS, New Delhi, marked as Exhibit-X for identification. 27. Before I conclude it appears necessary to mention that the appellant appears succeeded in obtaining privilege of bail during trial by this Court vide order passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 23388/2002 in spite of earlier refusal of the prayer in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 6639 of 2002 on 7th March, 2002 by asserting his date of birth being 17th July, 1985 as is also evident from para 8 of memo of Criminal Revision No. 9/2004 preferred by him as Suro @ Shiv @ Abhay Kumar Sharma @ Santosh Kumar Sharma available on record and said date of birth appears recorded in the name of Abhay Kumar Sharma and the appellant contested his assertion of being declared as juvenile up to this Court in said Criminal Revision which has been dismissed vide order dated 10.11.2005 and authorities concerned were directed to lodge a case against the petitioner and his associates since they dared to produce a document which is created and forged and it is also evident from the order of this Court in Criminal Revision on verification from Bihar School Examination Board, Patna, appellant's date of birth was found to be 25th May, 1978. This Court is not aware about further development in the case instituted against the appellant for afore stated wrong committed. 28. From overall consideration of the materials, it is evident that prosecution has not been able to establish intention of the appellant to kill the victim rather what appears is due to wrong committed by the appellant the victim has suffered not only grave physical injuries, but other mental shocks including desertion by her husband with whom she was recently married, she also deserves suitable compensation and proved wrong committed by the appellant validly attracts the offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code which reads as such : "326. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means.-Whoever, except in the case provided for by Section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive 'substance, or by means of any explosive substance, or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine." 20. Accordingly, conviction of the appellant for the offences under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside and for the offences under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code he deserves rigorous imprisonment for eight years with fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default of which to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years what has already been awarded, with only modification that the amount on deposit shall be paid to the victim. 30. In the result, with the above modification, this appeal is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.