ORDER 1. The accused appellant has been convicted under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. For commission of offence under Section 324 IPC he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the materials on record. 3. The prosecution case is that on the day of the occurrence after P.W.1 the victim had left Annapoorna Hospital where she was working along with her friend one Mahesh (P.W.2) she was followed by the first and the second accused who are known to her from before. According to P.W.1, she was asked/pressurized by accused No.1 to marry with him to which she declined. P.W. 1 in her deposition had further stated that on being followed she had asked her companion friend Mahesh to walk a little quickly. However, at a certain point of time the accused No.2 suddenly came in front of her and threw acid first of all on her shoulder and then on her face and ear. This, according to the P.W.1, was done in the presence of the accused No.1. 4. The consequence of the attack on P.W. 1 was that her head and face was totally disfigured and her right ear was permanently damaged. 5. P.W. 2 had turned hostile. Basing on the statement of P.W.1 the two courts have found the charge brought against the accused appellant (accused No.2) proved beyond all reasonable doubt. 6. We have perused the evidence of P.W. 1 with great care and caution. P.W.1 has clearly implicated both the accused who were known to her from before. Even if we have to look for a motive for the crime which the law does not mandate such motive is clearly established from the evidence of P.W.1. We find no reason whatsoever to disbelieve P.W.1, who is the victim of the acid attack. We, therefore, uphold the conviction of the accused appellant under Section 307 and 324 IPC. 7. Coming to the sentence, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the sentence of life imprisonment is excessive and may be interfered with by this Court and a lesser sentence be imposed keeping in mind the accused has been in custody for last 13 years. We disagree with the learned counsel. 7. Coming to the sentence, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the sentence of life imprisonment is excessive and may be interfered with by this Court and a lesser sentence be imposed keeping in mind the accused has been in custody for last 13 years. We disagree with the learned counsel. Having regard to the nature of the attack, the corrosive substance used and the permanent disfiguration caused and the imminent threat to the life of the victim we are of the view that the ends of justice require the Court to impose the sentence of life imprisonment on the accused appellant. The present appeal, therefore, is without any merit. It is accordingly dismissed.