JUDGMENT & ORDER : Rang Nath Pandey, J. Challenge in the appeal is to the Judgment and Order dated 23.09.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge II, Rai Bareli in Session Trial No.266 of 2003 whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced them to undergo seven years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.3000/- under Sections 326/504 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months' simple imprisonment; awarded one year's rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- under Section 3(1)(X) of the S.C./S.T. Act and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one year's simple imprisonment; and all the sentences to run concurrently. 2. In brief, the prosecution story is that complainant-Shrimati Vindeshwani Devi wife of Govind Chamar has given information to the Station Officer, Sareni of the fact that on 21.06.2001 the daughter of complainant namely Ms. Anita was lying on the door along with her family, then at about 4.00 o'clock in the morning, Buddhilal Yadav son of Sri Gangaram Yadav resident of Pure Lal Sahab, Hamlet Nisgar, Police Station Sareni, who is the native of District Unnao and lives at the place of Lallan Yadav of village and from the past 12 years is continuously performing the job of driving the tractor, came carrying a bottle filled with acid, due to the old enmity, and threw the acid on the face of her daughter; she cried. Listening the cries of her, when Ravishankar Chamar and complainant came running, then said Buddhilal Yadav ran away after hurling abuses. The report of this incident, Exhibit Ka-1, was lodged in writing on 21.06.2001 in Police Station- Sareni, District- Raebareli. Thereafter on arrest of accused not being made and report of the incident not being lodged properly by the Police, on 26.06.2001, an application, Exhibit 3 Ka, was given to the Inspector General Of Police, Lucknow Zone by husband of the complainant Shrimati Vindeshwari namely Govind son of Bachai to the effect that Gaya Ratan alias Lallan, former Pradhan Umakant Shukla of his village are the persons of criminal mindset. These people often do all kinds of unwanted activities in the area. Gaya Ratan has kept an unknown person named Buddhilal in his house for 6-7 years and gets all the illegal acts executed by him. These people often do all kinds of unwanted activities in the area. Gaya Ratan has kept an unknown person named Buddhilal in his house for 6-7 years and gets all the illegal acts executed by him. In last April, Buddhi had forcefully entered into the house of his younger brother, who was beaten in the house, thereafter Police also challaned him. He was a witness in it. Due to this reason, Umakant and Gaya Ratan started having enmity with him and Umakant Shukla and Gaya Ratan had threatened in the Police Station itself that they would not leave him alive. In the night, Umakant and Gaya Ratan used to sit in front of his house, at the place of Shukru and were having a bad eye on his daughter Anita. The marriage of Anita was fixed for the 30th day of that month itself. On 20th June he had left the house for the purpose of giving invitations. On 21st June at 4:00 am, these people entered his house and threw acid on his daughter who was asleep, because of which, she sustained burn injuries on mouth, eyes and neck, the treatment of which is going on in the Emergency Ward of District Hospital-Raebareli. The drops of acids have also fallen on the face of one boy Ranjeet-her younger brother, sleeping alongside. But the police didn't make the arrest of anyone. Umakant and Gaya Ratan has made Buddhi Lal run away somewhere and are threatening him that they have already ruined the life of his daughter and now his life is in danger. On 24.06.2001, Umakant armed with gun and Gaya Ratan came to his door at around 8 o'clock in the night and they said abusively that "sale chamar tumhe jan se khatam kar denge" (that chamar we will kill you). If you told anything against him to the Police, we have already ruined the life of your daughter, now we will ruin her also. Because of the fear of these people, his wife had not named them in the incident of acid attack whereas the reality is that these are the people who have thrown acid on his daughter. 3. If you told anything against him to the Police, we have already ruined the life of your daughter, now we will ruin her also. Because of the fear of these people, his wife had not named them in the incident of acid attack whereas the reality is that these are the people who have thrown acid on his daughter. 3. On this application of Govind son of Bachai which he had given to Inspector General of Police, Lucknow Zone, the S.P., Raebareli was directed to take further action after getting the case independently and speedily investigated and along with this application itself, inquiry and investigation were carried out. Investigation was carried out against accused persons Buddhilal, Umakant, Gaya Ratan @ Lallan and the statements of witnesses were recorded. The medical examination of Ms. Anita was got conducted in District Hospital, Raebareli. Site-plan of the place of occurrence was prepared, charge-sheet under Sections 326, 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the S.C./S.T. Act was filed against accused Buddhilal and charge-sheet under Section 326, 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the S.C./S.T. Act was separately filed against the accused Ratan @ Lallan and Umakant Shukla in the court. 4. After completion of investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded by the Investigating Officer. The site-plan was prepared. Charges were framed against the accused-appellants under Sections 326, 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(X) of the S.C./S.T. Act, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. To prove the charge, the prosecution has examined P.W.-1 Vindeshwari (complainant), P.W.2- Ms. Anita Devi, P.W.3- Dr. A.B. Singh, P.W.4- Govind and P.W.5- Rajeev Dikshit as C.W.1- Sri Rajeev Dikshit who has proved site-plan and charge-sheet in his statements. 6. After the closure of prosecution evidence, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they denied the allegations levelled against them, but did not adduce any evidence. 7. On evaluation of evidence, the trial court convicted the appellants as stated in para 1 of the judgment. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants has questioned the validity of the impugned judgment firstly, on the ground that the names of the accused-appellants did not find mention in the initial information received by the police as recorded by the complainant (P.W.1). 8. The learned counsel for the appellants has questioned the validity of the impugned judgment firstly, on the ground that the names of the accused-appellants did not find mention in the initial information received by the police as recorded by the complainant (P.W.1). The names of the appellants only cropped up once an application of Govind has been submitted to S.P., Raebareli nearly five days after the incident. 9. It is further submitted that statement of mother of the victim was recorded by the police on the date on which the incident occurred, but the appellants were not implicated in the same. 10. In support of their contention, learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the case of Yudhishtir v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, (1971) 3 SCC 436 . 11. I do not find any substance in the said contention raised on behalf of the appellants. It was P.W.2 Ms. Anita who was attacked by the appellants by pouring acid and she was best person who could have disclosed to the police about the identity or the names of the perpetrators of the crime. 12. As regards initial statement of P.W.1 Vindeshwari recorded by the police official on 21.06.2001, it is sufficient to note that in her further statement, it has been deposed that Umakant and Gaya Ratan threatened her that if she would name them they would kill her. It is also pertinent to note that S.I. had not written the name of these two accused when she dictated the S.I. in respect of the alleged crime. 13. It is not in dispute that injured Anita was attacked by acid on the alleged date. The same stands proved by medical evidence. P.W.3 proved the injury report (Exhibit Ka-2). As per the injury report, she had received three burn injuries which are as follows: (i) Liquid burn injury on her mouth, both the eyes and left & right cheeks. (ii) Liquid burn injury on the left shoulder. (iii) Liquid burn injury on the right shoulder. 14. The victim, who is an injured eye-witness, suffered brutal injuries on her body as result of acid being poured on her. In her statement, she has stated that she is the victim and with whom the incident is alleged to have been committed. (ii) Liquid burn injury on the left shoulder. (iii) Liquid burn injury on the right shoulder. 14. The victim, who is an injured eye-witness, suffered brutal injuries on her body as result of acid being poured on her. In her statement, she has stated that she is the victim and with whom the incident is alleged to have been committed. In her statement, supporting the incident she has also stated that the incident is of 3 years ago. It was the month of Ashadh when she was lying on the cot, along with her younger brother Ranjit in the courtyard of her house. Her sister Gita was lying beside her on a cot. It was 4 o'clock in the morning, when accused persons Gaya Ratan, Umakant and Buddhilal came. Out of these persons, Umakant and Gaya Ratan had held his hands and Budhdilal had thrown acid on her. The acid got poured on her face, cheek, ear and shoulder. She had seen the accused persons. On her hue and cry, her mother had come. Umakant and Lallan said that sali chamarin chillaogi to jan se maar dalenge (if you will raise alarm, we will kill you). Her mother had lodged the report at the Police Station, but her mother had not named Gaya Ratan and Umakant out of fear. She had been treated in Raebareli Emergency. She had undergone treatment for six months. Because of being burnt by the acid, her face has become ugly. On the day of incident, his father had gone for distributing the marriage invitation cards. Gaya Ratan and Umakant Shukla had asked her to do the wrong act. 15. I have gone through the testimony of P.W.2 Anita in detail. She is an injured eye witness who suffered brutal injuries on her body as result of acid being splashed on her. The evidence of an injured witness has to be accorded great weightage and in this regard observations of the Supreme Court in the following decisions are apposite. 16. In State of M.P. v. Mansingh, (2003) 10 SCC 414 , the Supreme Court observed:- "The evidence of injured witnesses has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exit, their statements are not to be discarded lightly. 16. In State of M.P. v. Mansingh, (2003) 10 SCC 414 , the Supreme Court observed:- "The evidence of injured witnesses has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exit, their statements are not to be discarded lightly. Merely because there was no mention of a knife in the first information report, that does not wash away the effect of the evidence tendered by the injured witnesses Pws 4 and 7. Minor discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of an otherwise acceptable evidence." In Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P., (2010) 10 SCC 259 , the Supreme Court held:- "28. The question of weight to be attached to the evidence of a witness that was himself injured in the course of the occurrence has been extensively discussed by this Court. Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailants in order to falsely implicate someone. "Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness." [Vide Ramlagan Singh v. State of Bihar, (1973) 3 SCC 881 , Malkhan Singh v. State of U.P., (1975) 3 SCC 311 , Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470 , Appabhai v. State of Gujarat, (1988) Supp1 SCC 241, Bonkya v. State of Maharashtra, (1995) 6 SCC 447 , Bhag Singh, (1997) 7 SCC 712 , Mohar v. State of U.P., (2002) 7 SCC 606 , Dinesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, (2008) 8 SCC 270 , Vishnu v. State of Rajasthan, (2009) 10 SCC 477 , AnnareddySambasiva Reddy v. State of A.P., (2009) 12 SCC 546 and Balraje v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 6 SCC 673 ]. 29. While deciding this issue, a similar view was taken in Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, (2009) 9 SCC 719 , where this Court reiterated the special evidentiary status accorded to the testimony of an injured accused and relying on its earlier judgments held as under: "28. Darshan Singh (PW4) was an injured witness. He had been examined by the doctor. His testimony could not be brushed aside lightly. Darshan Singh (PW4) was an injured witness. He had been examined by the doctor. His testimony could not be brushed aside lightly. He had given full details of the incident as he was present at the time when the assailants reached the tubewell. In ShivalingappaKallayanappa v. State of Karnataka, (1994) Supp3 SCC 235 this Court has held that the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies, for the reason that his presence on the scene stands established in case it is proved that he suffered the injury during the said incident. 29. In State of U.P. v. Kishan Chand, (2004) 7 SCC 629 , a similar view has been reiterated observing that the testimony of a stamped witness has its own relevance and efficacy. The fact that the witness sustained injuires at the time and place of occurrence, lends support to his testimoney that he was present during the occurrence. In case the injured witness is subjected to lenghty cross-examination and nothing can be elicited to discard his testimoney, it should be relied upon (vide Krishan v. State of Haryana, (2006) 12 SCC 459 ). Thus, we are of the considered opinion that evidence of Darshan Singh (P.W.4) has rightly been relied upon by the courts below." 30. The law on the point can be summarised to the effect that the testimony of the injured witness is accorded a special status in law. This is as a consequence of the fact that the injury to the witness is an inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and because the witness will not want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to falsely implicate a third party for the commission of the offence. Thus, the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein." Similarly in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Naresh, (2011) 4 SCC 324 , evidentiary value to be attached to the statement of an injured witness was expressed in the following words:- "27. The evidence of an injured witness must be given due weightage being a stamped witness, thus, his presence cannot be doubted. The evidence of an injured witness must be given due weightage being a stamped witness, thus, his presence cannot be doubted. His statement is generally considered to be very reliable and it is unlikely that he has spared the actual assailant in order to falsely implicate someone else. The testimony of an injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence and this lends support to his testimoney that he was present during the occurrence. Thus, the testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law. The witness would not like or want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to implicate a third person falsely for the commission of the offence. Thus, the evidence of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are grounds for the rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein. (Vide Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, (2009) 9 SCC 719 , Balraje v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 6 SCC 673 and Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P., (2010) 10 SCC 259 )" 17. On analysing the testimony of P.W.2 Ms. Anita on the touchstone of law laid down by various decisions of the Supreme Court, I am of the considered opinion that the submissions advanced by the counsel for the appellant deserve to be rejected. 18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, on the basis of cogent and reliable testimony of injured eye-witness Ms. Anita, I find that the appellants in conspiracy with co-accused Budhilal Yadav is guilty of throwing acid on victim Ms. Anita and thereby causing her grievous injuries. 19. The victim Anita, in the instant case, was of marriageable age when one rash and dreadful act of the appellants in conspiracy with co-accused Budhilal Yadav disrupted her entire normal life causing her and her family immense physical and mental trauma. By one stroke the appellants have made her face hideous and victim has to live with his physical and mental injury all her life for no fault of hers. One has to consider the plight of the poor parents who would have been broken seeing the mangled face of their beloved daughter. 20. By one stroke the appellants have made her face hideous and victim has to live with his physical and mental injury all her life for no fault of hers. One has to consider the plight of the poor parents who would have been broken seeing the mangled face of their beloved daughter. 20. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances discussed herein above, there is no error much less illegality committed by the trial court as would call interference. 21. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court are affirmed. The appellants, who are on bail, shall be taken into custody to serve the remaining part of the sentence awarded to him by the trial court in Session Trial No.266 of 2003 vide judgment and order dated 23.09.2004. 22. Office is directed to communicate this order forthwith to the court concerned and to send back the lower court record to ensure compliance.