JUDGMENT : V. SIVAGNANAM, J. PRAYER: This Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the entire records in connection with the S.C. No. 112/2019 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge (Fast Track Magalir Neethimandram), Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District and set aside the judgment dated 28.09.2021. 1. Challenging the impugned judgment dated 28.09.2021 passed in S.C. No. 112/2019 by the learned Sessions Judge (Fast Track Magalir Neethimandram), Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District, the present criminal appeal has been filed. 2. The prosecution case is that the appellant is the accused in S.C. No. 112 of 2019 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Magalir Neethimandram, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District. The appellant/accused and the complainant's families are neighbours and they are residing at Kuchipalayam Village, Marachandiram Post, Krishnagiri District. There was a dispute between the two families with regard to a common wall. On 13.07.2016 at about 01.30 a.m. when the victim girl/complainant Selvi Bhuvaneswari (PW-3), her mother Natchiammal (PW-1) and her father (PW-2) were sleeping in their house, the accused trespassed into their house and poured sulphuric Acid over the victim girl Bhuvaneswari (PW-3). In consequence, she suffered severe injuries on her body. Immediately, she went to a hospital, thereafter, gave a complaint Ex. P1 to the respondent police. Upon receipt of the complaint, a case in Crime No. 213 of 2016 has been registered by the respondent police for the offence punishable under Sections 307 IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002. After investigation, the respondent police filed a final report for the offences under Sections 307, 450 & 326(A) IPC. 3. Before the trial court, the prosecution examined fourteen witnesses and marked eighteen documents, besides five material objects have been filed. 4. When the incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied the same as false, he did not choose to examine any witness nor mark any documents. 5. 3. Before the trial court, the prosecution examined fourteen witnesses and marked eighteen documents, besides five material objects have been filed. 4. When the incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied the same as false, he did not choose to examine any witness nor mark any documents. 5. On consideration of the prosecution evidence, the trial Court found the accused guilty for the offence under Sections 452, 326(A) IPC and convicted and sentenced to undergo 5 years Rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 452 IPC and for the offence under Section 326(A) IPC, sentenced the accused to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 307 IPC. Aggrieved by this judgment, this present criminal appeal has been filed. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial Court failed to appreciate the prosecution evidence properly. The finding of the trial Court is erroneous, unsustainable on fact and on law. Further, contended that among the fourteen witnesses, PW-4 Chinnappan, PW-5 Kalirathinam, PW-6 Govindhan, PW-7 Vaigundan, PW-8 Selvam and PW-9 Jilaan Batcha were not supported to the prosecution case. They were treated by the prosecution as hostile witnesses. The remaining witnesses PW-1 to PW-3 to support the prosecution case and all are family members, even though their evidence is not enough to connect the appellant with the crime. PW-1 Tmt. Natchiammal the mother of the victim girl Bhuvaneswari, deposed before the Court that the police did not examine her and did not get a statement from her and she did not state about the accused to the police and she deposed about the accused first time before the Court. In the complaint Ex.P1 also, the name of the accused is not mentioned. Further, PW-3 her daughter Selvi Bhuvaneswari victim girl deposed that at the time of the occurrence, her mother PW-1 was sleeping in the next house not with her and in the circumstances, she may not see the accused at the time of the occurrence. In the complaint Ex.P1 also, the name of the accused is not mentioned. Further, PW-3 her daughter Selvi Bhuvaneswari victim girl deposed that at the time of the occurrence, her mother PW-1 was sleeping in the next house not with her and in the circumstances, she may not see the accused at the time of the occurrence. PW-2 Natarajan, during the cross examination, deposed that he came to know about the Acid attack, on hearing the crying sound of her daughter, therefore, he may not see the accused at the time of occurrence. PW-3 the victim girl deposed before the Court during the cross examination that she did not know, who poured Acid over her body. In the complaint also mentioned that only an unknown person poured the acid and requested to take action. Further, she deposed that she came to know about the accused through the police. Therefore, there is no evidence to connect the accused with the crime. The trial Court based upon the confession of the accused Ex.P13 found guilty and the alleged witnesses to the confession also not supported to the prosecution case, they were treated as hostile. In such circumstances, placing reliance upon the confession of the accused being an inadmissible evidence found guilty is unsustainable. The trial Court erred in relying upon the confession and held guilty of the accused is unsustainable. In this case, the prosecution failed to prove the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The trial Court without any acceptable legal evidence found guilty and convicted the accused, it has to be set aside and the accused is to be acquitted and thus, pleaded to acquit the accused and allow the criminal appeal. 7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the judgment of the trial Court and contended that there is no ground to interfere with the finding of the trial Court. The accused himself by giving confession accepted his involvement and Exs.P6 to 17 corroborated the prosecution witnesses. Under these circumstances, it is established that the victim girl was assaulted with Acid and the accused had a previous enmity with the victim girl's family. Therefore, the trial Court rightly found guilty and convicted the accused and no merit in the criminal appeal and thus, pleaded to dismiss the criminal appeal. 8. Under these circumstances, it is established that the victim girl was assaulted with Acid and the accused had a previous enmity with the victim girl's family. Therefore, the trial Court rightly found guilty and convicted the accused and no merit in the criminal appeal and thus, pleaded to dismiss the criminal appeal. 8. I have considered the matter in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Additional Public prosecutor for the respondent. 9. This is a case of Acid attack on a girl. The appellant/accused and the victim girl’s families are neighbours, which is not disputed. With regard to the dispute of a common wall between them is also not established. Further, the observation of the trial Court that the accused asked permission of PW-1 & PW-2, who are the victim girl's mother and father, to marry their daughter PW-3 Selvi Bhuveneswari, but they refused to marry their daughter to him, hence he had a strong motivation is also not supported with any material. Therefore, in this case, the alleged motive is not established by the prosecution. 10. I have considered the prosecution case and the evidence on record. The prosecution examined fourteen witnesses, PW-1 Natchiammal, PW-2 Natarajan are mother and father of the victim Selvi Bhuvaneswari (PW-3). Other witnesses PW-4 Chinnappan, PW-5 Kalirathinam, PW-6 Govindhan, PW-7 Vaigundan, PW-8 Selvam, and PW-9 Jilaan Batcha are all witnesses to the observation mahazer, rough sketch, confession statement and Seizure mahazer i.e Exs.P9 to Exs.14. All are not supporting the prosecution case. They were treated by the prosecution as hostile witnesses. Even though these witnesses were cross examined by the prosecution, unable to get any favourable evidence from them. The remaining witnesses PW-10 Dr.lokesh treated the victim girl (PW-3) Selvi Bhuvaneswari, PW-11 Murugan, Head Constable, handed over the material objects to the Forensic Department by letter Ex.P6 and Ex.P.7. PW-12 Vijayavaani, Sub Inspector of Police received the complaint from PW-3 Selvi Bhuvaneswari on 13.07.2016 and registered a case in Crime No. 213/2016 under Section 307 IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 2002 Ex.P8. PW-12 Vijayavaani, Sub Inspector of Police received the complaint from PW-3 Selvi Bhuvaneswari on 13.07.2016 and registered a case in Crime No. 213/2016 under Section 307 IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 2002 Ex.P8. PW-13 Srinivasan, Inspector of police, took up the case for investigation and inspected the place of occurrence and prepared observation mahazer Ex.P9 and prepared rough sketch Ex.P10 and recovered victim’s dresses under Mahazer Ex.P11 and also recovered acid bottle M.O.3 near the occurrence place by seizer mahazer Ex.P12 and examined witnesses and arrested the accused on 14.07.2016 and recorded his confession Ex.P13 in the presence of witnesses Arumugam and Selvam and recovered M.O.4 and M.O.5 under seizer Ex.P14 and forwarded the same to the Judicial Magistrate Court under form 91 Ex.P15 and remanded the accused. Thereafter, he was transferred, hence, handed over the case records to PW-14 Prabhavathi Inspector of Police, to take charge after him. She continued the investigation and recorded the statement and altered the case into for the offence under Sections 307, 450 & 326(A) IPC and alteration report is Ex.P18. After completing the investigation, filed a final report for the offence under Sections 307, 450, & 326(A) IPC. So, the evidence of PW-4 to PW-14 are not enough to connect the accused with the crime. 11. I have considered the remaining witnesses of PW-1 Natchiammal, PW-2 Natarajan and PW-3 Selvi Bhuvaneshwari Victim girl. PW-1 Natchiammal is the mother of the victim girl. So, the evidence of PW-4 to PW-14 are not enough to connect the accused with the crime. 11. I have considered the remaining witnesses of PW-1 Natchiammal, PW-2 Natarajan and PW-3 Selvi Bhuvaneshwari Victim girl. PW-1 Natchiammal is the mother of the victim girl. In her evidence, she deposed that three years before, the accused came to her house and asked them to give marriage of Bhuvaneswai (victim girl) to him, thereafter, after three days, the accused came to her house and poured Acid upon her daughter, at the time all are sleeping in Porch (in front portion of the house) and also stated that at about 01.30 p.m. she woke up on hearing her daughter’s crying sound and found the accused was running away from her house and her daughter suffered Acid injuries on her face, neck and also her hair was charred but during the cross examination, she deposed that she woke up only on hearing the crying sound of her daughter and her daughter was washing her face with water and on enquiry her daughter stated about the pouring of acid upon her and she did not give any statement to the police in this regard and also admitted that the police did not enquire her in this regard. Her evidence runs as follows: 12. Further, it is noticed that in the evidence of PW-3 Bhuvaneswari victim girl, she deposed that at the time of occurrence, her mother PW-1 Natchiammal was sleeping in a nearby tiled house not with her and her evidence runs as follows: 13. Considering this evidence, the evidence of PW-1 is not believable, she could not see the accused at the time of occurrence since she was sleeping in a nearby another tiled house and not sleeping with the victim girl. Therefore, the evidence of PW-1 Natchiammal to connect the accused with the crime is unbelievable, she may not be an eye witness to the occurrence. Further, PW-2 Natarajan evidence also is not sufficient to connect the accused with the crime. He deposed in his cross examination that he came to know about the incident only after hearing the crying sound of her daughter. His evidence runs as follows: 14. According to the evidence of PW-3, his father was sleeping in the outside of the house, he was not sleeping in the same place, where, the victim girl was sleeping in the Varaanda. His evidence runs as follows: 14. According to the evidence of PW-3, his father was sleeping in the outside of the house, he was not sleeping in the same place, where, the victim girl was sleeping in the Varaanda. 15. Under these circumstances, he could not see the accused and further, the evidence of PW-3 Selvi Bhuvaneswari is also not enough to connect the accused with the crime, since she admitted that he did not see the person, who poured sulphuric acid upon her. Her evidence runs as follows: 16. Therefore, the abovesaid evidences reveal that PW-3 also not evidenced to connect the accused with the crime. Therefore, in this case, there is no evidence to connect the accused with the crime beyond reasonable doubt. 17. The fundamental principle upon which the administration of justice on the criminal side is founded is that an accused person must be presumed to be innocent until the contrary is proved by credible and legal testimony beyond reasonable doubt. 18. A moral conviction regarding the guilt of an individual has no place in criminal jurisprudence. A court of law is to get at the truth from the legal evidence placed before it, by either side and is not to be guided by a moral conviction or influenced by the gravity of the crime. An order of conviction can be based only on legal evidence and not on hypothetical propositions or unwarranted inferences. 19. In this case, the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused, therefore, the accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court is hereby set aside and the appellant/accused is acquitted from all the charges. Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant/accused to be refunded to him.