ORDER : Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. Heard the parties. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 15.02.2005, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Latehar, in Cr. Appeal No. 20 of 2004, whereby and where under the appeal preferred by the opposite party no. 2 against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 26.4.2004, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First class, Latehar in G.R. Case No. 365 of 2001 convicting the O.P. No. 2 for the offence under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for two years has been set aside. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that while the informant was ploughing the field, the accused had come and started abusing him in filthy language. It is alleged that the accused had thrown acid on the informant, which caused burn injury to him. Based on the aforesaid allegations, G.R. Case No. 365 of 2001 was instituted, in which after investigation charge sheet was submitted. After cognisance was taken, charge was framed under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and trial proceeded. In course of trial, seven witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. 4. P.W-1-Nageshwar Thakur is a formal witness, who had proved the formal FIR. 5. P.W-2-Kailash Soni has deposed that on the date of occurrence he was in his house and informant told him that the accused persons had thrown acid upon him. 6. P.W-3-Binod Soni has stated that he was in his house on the date of occurrence when he heard the cry of alarm and when he went to the house of the informant he saw burn injury on the body of the informant. He has further stated that he came to know that the accused had thrown acid upon the informant. 7. P.W-4-Aamir Chand Sao is the informant who has stated that on the date of occurrence, he was in his field tilling the land. He has stated that accused had come and had thrown acid from a bottle upon him, as a result of which, he sustained burn injury. This witness had given a written report to the police station, which was marked as Ext-2. He has further deposed that the police had sent him to the hospital where he was treated. 8. P.W-5-Dr. He has stated that accused had come and had thrown acid from a bottle upon him, as a result of which, he sustained burn injury. This witness had given a written report to the police station, which was marked as Ext-2. He has further deposed that the police had sent him to the hospital where he was treated. 8. P.W-5-Dr. Sunil Baraik had examined the informant and found the following injuries:- (i) Burn injury on spinal region back of chest 2" x 1½" lacerated wounds. (ii) Burn injury on left forearm ½" x ¼" lacerated wound. (iii) Scratch on left axillary region ½" x ?" Nature of injury-Simple in nature. 9. It was opined that all the injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance and were simple in nature. The injury report was marked as Ext-3. 10. P.W-6-Ram Chandra Sao is a hearsay witness, who had heard about the incident. 11. P.W.-7-Jagdish Paswan is the Investigating Officer who had taken the re-statement of the informant and gave a requisition for medical examination of the informant. This witness had recorded the statement of the witnesses during investigation and after finding the allegations to be true had submitted charge sheet against the O.P. No. 2. In cross-examination, he had stated that there was a dispute between the petitioner and the accused regarding the alley. Learned trial court after consideration of the evidence on record had convicted the petitioner for the offence under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo S.I for two years vide judgment dated 26.4.2004. Learned appellate court, however, on appeal set aside the judgement of conviction and acquitted the opposite party no. 2. 12. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the witnesses have clearly deposed about the petitioner suffering burn injury but merely on the basis of the opinion of the doctor, it has been held by the learned appellate court that the medical evidence does not corroborate the ocular evidence. It has further been submitted that corrosive substance was thrown upon the petitioner and since the petitioner had suffered burn injury, the doctor could not have opined that it was caused by hard and blunt substance. It has also been submitted that the learned appellate court merely on surmises had acquitted O.P. No. 2 for the offence under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. 13. It has also been submitted that the learned appellate court merely on surmises had acquitted O.P. No. 2 for the offence under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. 13. Mr. P.A.N. Roy, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2, on the other hand has submitted that the prosecution had utterly failed to prove its case against the O.P. No. 2. It has been submitted that there was a dearth of evidence on behalf of the prosecution and the learned appellate court on proper consideration of the medical evidence found falsity of the allegations levelled against the O.P. No. 2 leading to his acquittal. Learned counsel further submits that investigation was carried out in a perfunctory manner and the Investigating Officer had clearly admitted that he had not mentioned the place of occurrence in the case diary, which has further diluted the case of the prosecution. 14. On consideration of the evidence of the witnesses as well as the injury report, it appears that the learned appellate court had while acquitting O.P. No. 2 taken into consideration the evidence of the doctor which according to learned appellate court does not corroborate the injury report. Further ground has been taken that P.Ws, 2, 3 and 6 are hearsay witnesses. It has been mentioned in the appellate court's judgment that the Investigating Officer had not mentioned the place of occurrence in the case diary and the investigation being perfunctory in nature, benefit of doubt had been given to the O.P. No. 2. It has also been held therein that no injury was found on mouth, chest and shoulder, as has been stated by the informant and based on the aforesaid considerations, learned appellate court had acquitted the O.P. No. 2. 15. Learned trial court had considered the evidence of the informant P.W-4 as well as the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 while coming to the conclusion that the petitioner had indeed sustained burn injury on account of corrosive substance having been thrown upon him. P.W-3, who is an independent witness, had also stated that he had seen burn injury on the person of the petitioner. Learned appellate court appears to have been swayed by the opinion of the doctor regarding the injury sustained on account of assault by hard and blunt substance whereas In fact the doctor had not opined that all the injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance. Learned appellate court appears to have been swayed by the opinion of the doctor regarding the injury sustained on account of assault by hard and blunt substance whereas In fact the doctor had not opined that all the injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance. Learned appellate court had overtly relied on para 4 of the evidence of the doctor. In fact, it appears that opinion had been given regarding cause of injury as being caused by hard and blunt object except injury nos. 1 and 2, which was caused by corrosive agent. The injury report marked as Ext-3 and the evidence of the doctor substantiates the contention of the petitioner that corrosive substance was thrown upon him leading to his suffering burn injury. There may be some discrepancy with respect to region of the body which the petitioner claims was affected by corrosive substance thrown upon him but such discrepancy cannot lead to a conclusion regarding the non complicity of the O.P. No. 2 in committing the offence. The evidence of the informant (P-W-4) has been apart from being substantiated by the medical evidence also has been supported by the P.W-3 who had seen burn injury on the person of the informant. Investigation on certain aspect has definitely been conducted in a perfunctory manner but the lacuna on the part of the Investigating Officer cannot lead to the opposite party no. 2 deriving any benefit in view of ocular as well as medical evidence supporting the contention of the petitioner. 16. The place of occurrence although has not been mentioned by the Investigating Officer in the case diary but it has been stated by P.W-4 that while he was tilling the land, O.P. No. 2 had come and had thrown acid upon him. Circumstances, enumerated above, had rightly been considered by the learned trial court while convicting O.P. No. 2 for the offence under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned appellate court on consideration of the circumstances not germane for setting aside the order of the learned trial court had acquitted the O.P. No. 2 which being not in accordance with law is hereby set aside and the order of the learned trial court is affirmed. 17. Learned appellate court on consideration of the circumstances not germane for setting aside the order of the learned trial court had acquitted the O.P. No. 2 which being not in accordance with law is hereby set aside and the order of the learned trial court is affirmed. 17. However, since the incident is of more than 15 years back and the O.P. No. 2 had remained for sometime in custody during trial, this Court is not inclined to direct the O.P. No. 2 to be taken in custody. 18. Accordingly, while upholding the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, the period of sentence imposed by the learned trial court upon O.P. No. 2 is modified to the period already undergone. 19. This application stands allowed with the aforesaid modification in sentence imposed upon O.P. No. 2. Appeal allowed.