JUDGMENT : 1. The appellants have challenged judgment dated 03.06.2002 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu (‘the trial Court’ for short) whereby they have been convicted of offences under Sections 326/451 RPC. Challenge has also been thrown to order dated 03.06.2002 passed by the trial Court whereby the appellants, in proof of offence under Section 326 RPC, have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 05 years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- each and, in proof of offence under Section 451 RPC, the appellants have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 01 year and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-each. In default of payment of fine, the appellants have been directed to undergo further simple imprisonment for 01 year. The trial Court has also directed that the amount of fine, if recovered, be released in favour of the victim as compensation and all the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 28.03.1989 PW Inspector Som Dutt, who was posted as SHO P/S, Kanachak at the relevant time, went to the house of victim PW Chanchla Devi and recorded the statement of her mother PW Har Devi. She stated that her family has strained relations with family of appellant Paryog Raj and on 28.03.1989 at about 1 pm, all the appellants armed with khokhries trespassed into her house and launched an attack upon her daughter PW Chanchla Devi. She further stated that appellant Paryog Raj attacked PW Chanchala Devi with a khokhri and thereafter appellant Subash Chander also launched an attack on her head, as a result of which, PW Chanchala Devi suffered serious injuries and while saving herself, she received injuries on her fingers. It was also stated by her that appellant Paryog Raj sprinkled acid upon PW Chanchla Devi and the girls, who were sitting in the verandah at the relevant time, raised a hue and cry, where-after, the appellants fled away from the spot. PW Chanchala Devi was taken to Hospital in a serious condition. On the basis of this statement, FIR No. 52/1989 for offences under Sections 307/326/451 RPC and Section 4/27 of Arms Act was registered and investigation of the case was set into motion. 3. During investigation of the case, the bottle in which acid was carried by the assailants was seized. On the basis of this statement, FIR No. 52/1989 for offences under Sections 307/326/451 RPC and Section 4/27 of Arms Act was registered and investigation of the case was set into motion. 3. During investigation of the case, the bottle in which acid was carried by the assailants was seized. Some blades of wheat crop and grass, that were burnt due to sprinkling of acid and the blood stained/burnt clothes of PW Chanchla Devi were also recovered and seized. The statement of PW Chanchla Devi, who was lying admitted to the Hospital, was also recorded. 4. PW Chanchala Devi in her statement to the police stated that on the day of occurrence, her brother-in-law appellant Simran Singh came to her house and asked her to accompany him to which she objected. She further stated that in the meantime, appellant Paryog Raj also came over there and asked her to accompany him to which she again objected. She went on to state that appellant Paryog Raj launched an attack with a khokhri upon her head, where-after, appellants Subash Chander and Mohan Lal alias pappu, who were also on spot, launched an attack upon her with kokhri. She further stated that appellant Paryog Raj sprinkled acid on her head and other parts of her body, as a result of which, her clothes and her body suffered burns. 5. After conducting investigation of the case, offences under Sections 307/326/451 and 4/27 Arms Act were found established against the appellants. However, the khokhries could not be recovered. Appellants Simran Singh and Mohan Lal were arrested, whereas appellants Paryog Raj and Subash Chander absconded, but later on, they surrendered and they were bailed out by the Court. 6. Vide order dated 21.06.1990, charges for offences under Sections 451/307/326 RPC and 4/27 Arms Act were framed against the appellants and the prosecution was directed to lead evidence in support of the charges. Out of 19 witnesses cited in the challan, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses in support of its case. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the appellants under Section 342 CrPC were recorded. In their statements, the appellants claimed that the prosecution witnesses have deposed falsehood. They claimed that due to strained relations between the parties, a false case has been foisted upon them. The appellants also produced two witnesses namely DWs Ram Lal and Sardari Lal in defence. 7. In their statements, the appellants claimed that the prosecution witnesses have deposed falsehood. They claimed that due to strained relations between the parties, a false case has been foisted upon them. The appellants also produced two witnesses namely DWs Ram Lal and Sardari Lal in defence. 7. The learned trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the charges for offences under Sections 326/451 RPC are established against the appellants, whereas the charges for offences under Sections 307 RPC and Section 4/27 Arms Act have not been established. Accordingly, the appellants have been convicted of offences under Sections 451/326 RPC and acquitted of the charges for offences under Sections 307 RPC and 4/27 of Arms. Act 8. The appellants have challenged the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence on the ground that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective. It has been contended that there are serious inconsistencies and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses inter se, as also in the statements made by them before the Court and before the police during investigation of the case, but the trial Court has not adverted to this aspect of the mater. It has been further contended that all the independent prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution version and there being previous enmity between the family members of the appellants and the family members of the victim, the statements of interested witnesses cannot be relied upon. It has also been contended that there are contradictions and inconsistencies even regarding the place of occurrence and, as such, there is enough doubt in the prosecution evidence to award an acquittal in favour of the appellants. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants. I have also heard learned Dy.AG appearing for the respondent-State. Learned counsel appearing for the victim has also been heard. The grounds of appeal, trial Court record including the evidence led before the trial Court have also been perused. 10. As already noted, the allegation against the appellants is that on the fateful day, they trespassed into the house of the victim. In the first instance, she was asked by appellant Simran Singh to accompany him to which she objected and later on, she was asked by appellant Paryog Raj to accompany him to which she again objected. 10. As already noted, the allegation against the appellants is that on the fateful day, they trespassed into the house of the victim. In the first instance, she was asked by appellant Simran Singh to accompany him to which she objected and later on, she was asked by appellant Paryog Raj to accompany him to which she again objected. Thereafter, she was attacked by appellants Paryog Raj, Subash Chander and Mohan Lal and appellant Paryog Raj also sprinkled acid upon her which resulted in serious burn injuries to the victim. The most material evidence, having regard to the nature of allegations against the appellants, would be the statement of the victim PW Chanchala Devi. Therefore, her statement needs to be carefully analyzed. 11. PW Chanchal Devi has stated that on 28.03.1989, after taking examination she reached her home. Her sisters PWs Shanti, Sunita and Rajni as well as her mother were in her home. When she was studying in the verandah, appellant Simran Singh came over there and he asked her to enter into wedlock with appellant Paryog Raj. She objected to it and appellant Simran Singh threatened that in case she does not marry appellant Paryog Raj, he would divorce her sister Swarna Devi, where-after, he went away. She further stated that after 2-3 minutes, all the four appellants came over there and appellant Paryog Raj asked her to accompany him to which she objected. The said appellant caught hold of her arm and started dragging her. Her sisters and her mother raised a hue and cry. Appellant Paryog Raj hit her with a khokhri on her head, where-after, appellants Subash Chanderf and Mohan Lal also attacked her with khokhri and while trying to save herself, she received a blow of khokhri on her right hand, as a result of which, her fingers got injured. When appellant Mohan Lal attacked her with Khokhri, she tried to save her and again her hand got injured. Appellants Subash Chander and Mohan Lal caught hold of her arm and appellant Paryog Raj brought out a bottle of acid from his jacket and tried to make her drink the said acid. She sat down and tucked her head between her two knees, where-after appellant Paryog Raj sprinkled acid over her head, face, breasts and arms. Thereafter, all the four appellants fled away from there. She sat down and tucked her head between her two knees, where-after appellant Paryog Raj sprinkled acid over her head, face, breasts and arms. Thereafter, all the four appellants fled away from there. The victim further stated that two persons PWs Mishro Ram and Gharu Ram came on spot and she was taken to Hospital at Jammu. After two and a half hours, her statement was recorded by the police. She further stated that the appellants Paryog Ram and Subash Chander came to the Hospital to threaten her. She made statement EXPW-CD before the Police. She has also stated that she was referred to a Hospital at Chandigrarh where she remained under treatment for more than two years. Her burnt clothes were seized by the police vide memo EXPW-CD/1 and the bottle in which acid was carried was seized vide memo EXPW-CD/2. 12. The first argument that has been raised by learned counsels for the appellants to assail the aforesaid statement of the victim is that she has contradicted the version of occurrence given by her to the police in her statement EXPW-CD. In this regard, learned counsels for appellants have stated that in her statement EXPW-CD, she has stated that acid was sprinkled upon her by appellant Pappu i.e Mohan Lal, but while making her statement before the Court, she has stated that appellant Paryog Raj had sprinkled acid upon her. The learned counsels have stated that this contradiction stands proved as previous statement of PW Chanchala Devi EXPW-CD was brought to her notice during her cross-examination and she was confronted with the contradiction on this aspect of the matter. On this ground, it has been contended that the statement of the victim cannot be relied upon. 13. If we have a look at the statement of PW Chanchala Devi recorded before the Police EXPW-CD, she has stated in the earlier part of her statement that appellant Paryog Raj tried to pour acid in her mouth, but when she closed her mouth, he sprinkled it over her head and other parts of the body, but in the later part of the statement EXPW- CD she has stated that afore-named (Mazkoor in Urdu) Pappu sprinkled acid upon her head and other parts of the body. When this contradiction was brought to the notice of the victim, she stated that it is the appellant Paryog Raj who sprinkled acid upon her head and body. As already stated, in the earlier part of the statement EXPW-CD, it is recorded that appellant Paryog Raj tried to pour acid into the mouth of victim, but she did not allow it to happen by closing her mouth and in the later part of her statement, it is recorded that aforesaid Pappu poured acid on her head and body. The expression “aforesaid” (urdu version ‘Mazkoora’) refers to the person who had tried to pour acid into the mouth of the victim, whom she has clearly identified as appellant Paryog Raj even in her statement EXPW-CD. Thus, it appears to be a case of clerical error by the police official who has recorded the statement EXPW-CD. It seems that the scribe of the statement has inadvertently incorporated the name of Pappu in the later part of the statement EXPW-CD. The scribe has clearly used the expression ‘aforesaid’ (Mazkoora) even in the later part of the statement meaning thereby that the witness was referring to the person who had tried to pour the acid into her mouth. 14. The aforesaid aspect could have been clarified by the police official who has recorded the said statement, but unfortunately, the police official PW Inder Singh, who has recorded the statement EXPWCD, died before his statement could be recorded during trial of the case. The factum of death of PW Inder Singh Head Constable has been confirmed by the Investigating Officer PW Som Dutt while making his statement before the Court. The statement of the victim PW Chanchala Devi that it is Paryog Raj, who poured acid upon her makes it explicit that it is only because of a clerical error, the name of Pappu has been incorporated in the statement (EXPW-CD) recorded by the police. Therefore, it cannot be stated that there is any contradiction or inconsistency in the statement of PW Chanchala Devi as regards the identity of the person who has sprinkled acid upon her body. 15. Apart from the above, the statement of victim PW Chanchala Devi receives corroboration from the statement of her mother PW Har Devi who was also present in the house at the relevant time. 15. Apart from the above, the statement of victim PW Chanchala Devi receives corroboration from the statement of her mother PW Har Devi who was also present in the house at the relevant time. She has clearly stated that it was appellant Paryog Raj who took out a bottle of acid from his jacket and poured it upon the body of the victim. Learned counsels for the appellants have contended that it was not possible for PW Har Devi to witness the occurrence because she has admitted that she was inside the kitchen and from there, the verandah where the occurrence is stated to have taken place, is not visibile. In this regard, it is to be noted that PW Chanchala Devi has stated that during the occurrence her mother and her sisters came on spot and they raised a hue and cry. Thus, no doubt can be raised about the version given by PW Har Devi. 16. Even PW Sunita, the sister of the victim, who was also present on spot has stated that it was appellant Paryog Raj who poured acid upon the body of the victim. Thus, there is no manner of doubt in concluding that it was appellant Paryog Raj who poured acid upon the body of the victim and this fact has been emphasized and confirmed by the victim in her statement before the Court. Thus, it cannot be stated that there is any contradiction or inconsistency in the evidence led by the prosecution on this aspect of the matter. 17. It has been next contended by the learned counsels for the appellants that there is a contradiction in the statements of prosecution witnesses as regards the place of occurrence as well. In this regard, it has been contended that as per the prosecution version and as per the statements of the eye witnesses and the victim, the occurrence is stated to have taken place in the verandah of the house of victim, but the Investigating Agency has, during the course of investigation, recovered the burnt blades of wheat crop and grass from a nearby field which means that occurrence has taken place over there. Thus, according to the learned counsels for the appellants, there are two versions as regards the place of occurrence coming forth from the evidence led by the prosecution. This makes the case of the prosecution doubtful. 18. Thus, according to the learned counsels for the appellants, there are two versions as regards the place of occurrence coming forth from the evidence led by the prosecution. This makes the case of the prosecution doubtful. 18. So far as the testimony of the victim and the eye witnesses PWs Har Devi and Sunita is concerned, they have consistently stated that the occurrence has taken place in the verandah of the house of the victim. Site map EXPW-SD shows that the occurrence has taken place in the verandah. However, the seizure memo in respect of the bottle that was containing acid EXPW-OR shows that the said bottle was recovered from the land belonging to one Premu and the said bottle was seized along with some burnt blades of wheat crop and grass vide the aforesaid memo. On this basis, learned counsels for the appellants claim that there is a contradiction as regards the place of occurrence. 19. The aforesaid argument of learned counsels for the appellants is without any substance because the Investigating Officer PW Som Dutt when confronted with this situation explained that the bottle of acid was recovered from a place which is about 100 yards away from the place of occurrence. He has further stated that the bottle of acid was recovered from the wheat field and some wheat crops had also burnt due to the acid. PW Sunita has explained that after the occurrence, the appellants threw away the bottle of acid in the field belonging to Premu. So, there is clear cut explanation coming from the prosecution evidence that the bottle of acid was not recovered from the place of occurrence, but it had been thrown away by the assailants to a nearby field after accomplishing their design. Thus, there is no parallel evidence on record that would contradict the prosecution case as regards the place of occurrence. The argument of learned counsels in this regard is without any substance. 20. Another argument that has been raised by learned counsels for the appellants is that there is no medical evidence on record to prove the offence under Section 326 against the appellants, inasmuch as, the prosecution has not examined the Doctor who has actually treated the victim and, therefore, the ingredients of offence under Section 326 RPC have not been established in the present case. 21 Before proceeding to determine the merits of the submission made by the learned counsels, it would be apt to notice the provision contained in Section 326 RPC that was existing at the relevant time. It reads as under: 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 22. From a perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that in order to prove the charge for offence under Section 326 RPC, the prosecution has to establish; (i) causing of grievous hurt by the accused; (ii) it was caused voluntarily and (iii) such grievous hurt was caused by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing etc. or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance etc. Grievous hurt has been defined in Section 320 RPC. It includes amongst other acts, permanent disfiguration of head or face and any hurt which causes the sufferer to be in severe bodily pain during the space of 20 days or makes him/her unable to follow his/her ordinary pursuits. In the light of aforesaid position of law, the medical evidence on record is required to be analyzed so as to determine whether or not the ingredients of offence under Section 326 RPC are made out in the instant case. 23. PW Dr. Rajidner Singh, Surgical Specialist has stated that he has issued a certificate EXPW-RS. As per the said certificate, the victim PW Chanchala Devi was referred from SMGS Hospital, Jammu to PGI Chandigarh for her treatment. 24. The prosecution has also examined PW Dr. Sanjay Soni, Senior Resident, Plastic Surgery, PGI Chandigarh. 23. PW Dr. Rajidner Singh, Surgical Specialist has stated that he has issued a certificate EXPW-RS. As per the said certificate, the victim PW Chanchala Devi was referred from SMGS Hospital, Jammu to PGI Chandigarh for her treatment. 24. The prosecution has also examined PW Dr. Sanjay Soni, Senior Resident, Plastic Surgery, PGI Chandigarh. He has stated that PW Chanchala Devi was referred to PGI Chandigarh by SMGS Hospital Jammu as a case of chemical burns 20%. He has further stated that she was admitted in PGI on 03.05.1989. He went on to state that plastic surgery was performed on PW Chanchla Devi and that she was a case of chemical burns. He further stated that victim had suffered burn injuries in her right eye, right side of her face and neck and she underwent 11 surgeries from 14.09.1989 to 04.05.1990 as per record of the Hospital. 25. PW Dr. S.K.Razdan, Scientific Assistant has proved his report EXPW-SKR in which he has recorded that the bottle seized vide memo EXPW-OR was containing sulphuric acid which is a corrosive substance. He has also stated that the burnt clothes of the victim upon their examination were found to contain traces of sulphuric acid. 26. From the forgoing medical evidence on record corroborated by the report of the FSL, it is clear that the victim has suffered burn injuries due to sprinkling of sulphuric acid upon her. The Scientific Assistant PW S.K.Razdan has stated that the sulphuric acid is a corrosive substance. Thus, the injuries suffered by the victim are proved to have been caused by a corrosive substance. The medical record produced by Doctor Sanjay Soni reveals that the victim has undergone 11 surgeries from 14.09.89 to 04.05.1990 which means that there is evidence on record to show that she would have been in severe bodily pain for all this period and she would not have been able to follow her ordinary pursuits during this period. The statement of Dr. Sanjay Soni further confirms the fact that the victim had suffered disfigurement of right side of her face and neck. Thus, all the ingredients of offence under section 326 RPC have been established by the prosecution in the present case. Merely because Dr. Sanjay Sohni has not himself treated the victim does not negate his statement as regards the nature of injuries that were observed on the body of the victim. Thus, all the ingredients of offence under section 326 RPC have been established by the prosecution in the present case. Merely because Dr. Sanjay Sohni has not himself treated the victim does not negate his statement as regards the nature of injuries that were observed on the body of the victim. The same is supported by the medical record which has been produced by PW Dr. Sanjay Soni before the trial Court. 27. Lastly, it has been contended that the trial Court has not framed any charge of abetment, conspiracy or common intention against the appellants Mohan Lal, Simran Singh and Subash Chander. Therefore, they cannot be convicted in respect of an illegal act committed by the appellant Paryog Raj. It has been contended that unless an accused is charged with an offence of abetment or conspiracy, he cannot be convicted of the substantive offence which has been established to have been committed by only one of the co-accused. 28. In the above context, a perusal of the record shows that the charge for offence under Section 109 RPC or 34 RPC or 120-B RPC has not been framed against the appellants. There is no doubt about the fact that as per the evidence on record, the acid was poured by appellant Paryog Raj upon the body of the victim and it is not even the case of the prosecution that any other appellant had also poured acid upon the body of victim. The question that arises for consideration is whether all the appellants can be convicted of offences under Sections 326 RPC and 451 RPC in the facts and circumstances of the case. 29. As a general rule, it cannot be laid down that a person charged for the substantive offence can, in no circumstances, be convicted for abetment of the same. The position is well settled that when a case is covered by Section 236 and 237 of J&K Cr.PC and accused had the notice of all the facts which go on to make up the charge of abetment, he can be convicted for such abetment even in cases where the charge framed against him is only for the substance offence. The position is well settled that when a case is covered by Section 236 and 237 of J&K Cr.PC and accused had the notice of all the facts which go on to make up the charge of abetment, he can be convicted for such abetment even in cases where the charge framed against him is only for the substance offence. However, if it is found that the accused had no notice of the facts constituting abetment and, as such, had no chance of meeting such a case, conviction for abetment will not be justified when he is charged with the substantive offence. 30. Adverting to the facts of the present case, although in the memo of charges framed against the appellants, there is no mention of Section 109 of RPC, yet the substance of allegations recorded in the memo of charges shows that the appellants have been apprised that the allegation against them is that they trespassed into the house of the victim, armed with khokhries and thereafter launched an attack upon her when appellant Paryog Raj poured acid upon her. It is also alleged in the memo of charges that the appellants were having criminal intention while indulging in the aforesaid acts. Thus, the appellants were made aware of the allegation that that all of them were the participants in the alleged crime. So, it cannot be stated that the appellants did not have notice of the facts constituting abetment of commission of offence under Section 326. Therefore, in the instant case, even without specifically mentioning the charge for offence under section 109 RPC against appellants Mohan Lal, Subash Chander and Simran Singh, they can be convicted of offence under section 326 RPC if the evidence shows that all of them have participated in the crime and that they have aided and abetted the appellant Paryog Raj in accomplishing his design of pouring acid upon the victim. 31. In the above context, the role of each of the appellants needs to be analyzed in the light of evidence led by the prosecution. So far as the appellant Simran Singh is concerned, none of the prosecution witnesses including PW Chanchala Devi, the victim has stated that he has either attacked the victim or that he has exhorted the other appellants to launch an attack upon the victim. So far as the appellant Simran Singh is concerned, none of the prosecution witnesses including PW Chanchala Devi, the victim has stated that he has either attacked the victim or that he has exhorted the other appellants to launch an attack upon the victim. The only evidence against him is that he asked the victim to marry appellant Paryog Raj to which she objected, where-after, he threatened to snap marital ties with her sister. In fact, the victim PW Chanchla Devi has, in her cross examination, clarified that the appellant Simran Singh did not indulge in any act except that he threatened to snap marital ties with her sister. In the face of this nature of evidence, the question arises whether it can be stated that appellant Simran Singh has either aided or abetted appellant Paryog Raj in commission of the crime. 32. In order to find an answer to the aforesaid question, definition of ‘abetment’ as contained in Section 107 of RPC is required to be noticed and understood. It reads as under :- "107. Abetment of a thing A person abets the doing of a thing, who: (i) Instigates any person to do that thing; or (ii) Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or (iii)Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing”. 33 From a perusal the aforesaid provision, it is clear that in order to conclude that a person has abetted the doing of a thing , it has to be shown that either he has instigated any person to do that thing, or he has engaged in conspiracy for doing such thing or he has aided by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. In the instant case, there is no evidence on record to show that appellant Simran Singh has instigated appellant Paryog Raj in launching an attack upon the victim. There is also no evidence on record to show that he has entered into any conspiracy with the other appellants. Further, there is no evidence on record to show that he has indulged in any act at the time of alleged occurrence. There is also no evidence on record to show that he has entered into any conspiracy with the other appellants. Further, there is no evidence on record to show that he has indulged in any act at the time of alleged occurrence. He has neither aided, nor exhorted the other accused in commission of the crime. Merely because he has threatened to snap marital ties with the sister of the victim without any threat to cause any physical harm to her, it cannot be stated that appellant Simran Singh has abetted the commission of the crime. The conviction of appellant Simran Singh recorded by the trial Court is, therefore, based upon no evidence and is liable to be set aside. 34. Coming to the cases of other appellants, so far as appellant Paryog Raj is concerned, there is plethora of evidence on record to show that he has poured acid upon the body of the victim which has resulted in severe burns to her. There is also evidence on record to show that he did so as the victim did not accede to her request of entering into wedlock with him. His direct involvement in the crime is deposed to not only by the victim but also by the other eye witnesses, namely PW Har Devi and Sunita Kumari which is corroborated by the medical evidence and the recovery of burnt clothes of the victim and the recovery of bottle of acid from near the place of occurrence. Thus, the charges for offences under Sections 326 and 451 stand established against the appellant Paryog Raj. 35. That takes us to the role of appellants Mohan Lal and Subash Chander. PW Chanchala Devi has stated that appellant Mohan Lal and Subash Chander attacked her with Khokhri. She went on to state that both the aforenamed appellants caught hold of her arm while appellant Paryog Raj brought out a bottle of acid and poured it upon her body. Thus, there is sufficient evidence on record to show that both the appellants Subash Chander and Mohan Lal have indulged in the act of aiding appellant Paryog Raj in accomplishing his design of taking a revenge upon the victim who had refused to enter into wedlock with him. Therefore, the charge for offences under Section 326/451 read with Section 109 RPC stands established against appellants Mohan Lal and Subash Chander. Therefore, the charge for offences under Section 326/451 read with Section 109 RPC stands established against appellants Mohan Lal and Subash Chander. They may not have been charged for offence under Section 109 RPC, yet having regard to the nature of the substance of allegations contained in the memo of charges framed against them, it can safely be stated that they had the knowledge of all the facts which go on to make up the charge of abetment. and, as such, non-mentioning of section 109 RPC in the memo of charges has not worked to their prejudice. 36. Lastly, a feeble attempt has been made by the learned counsels for the appellants to contend that the injuries received on the body of the victim are self inflicted. It has been submitted that the victim intended to marry appellant Paryog Raj and it was not acceptable to her father PW Udhu Ram, who, on the day of occurrence, thrashed her and the victim poured acid upon her body so as to commit suicide. In this regard, reference has been made to the statements made by PW Udhu Ram and PW Chanchala Devi in their cross-examination. Reliance has also been placed on the statements of defence witnesses DWs Ram Lal and Sardari Lal. 37. During cross-examination of PW Har Devi, the mother of the victim, the defence suggested to her that PW Chanchala was compelling her father that she would marry appellant Paryog Raj. It was further suggested that because of this, PW Udhu Ram inflicted an injury with a khokhri on the head of the PW Chanchala Devi, where-after, she tried to commit suicide by pouring acid upon her. These suggestions have been denied by PW Har Devi. A similar suggestion was made to PW Chanchala Devi during her cross examination which she denied. It was also suggested to her that it was her father who poured acid upon her body and the said suggestion was also denied by her. 38. The defence set up by the appellants is fanciful and improbable because, if at all, the victim wanted to commit suicide, she would not have poured acid on her body. If she intended to kill herself, she would have consumed the acid so that there would have been no chance of her survival. 38. The defence set up by the appellants is fanciful and improbable because, if at all, the victim wanted to commit suicide, she would not have poured acid on her body. If she intended to kill herself, she would have consumed the acid so that there would have been no chance of her survival. It is not natural that a person especially a female, who does not wish to live, would pour acid upon her face and live a miserable life with an ugly face. Secondly, this fanciful story carved out by the defence has not even been put to PW Udhu Ram, who according to the defence, was against the marriage of his daughter with appellant Paryog Raj and for this reason, he had thrashed his daughter. Therefore, the defence projected by the appellants is not proved and the same deserves to be out-rightly rejected. 39. For what has been discussed hereinbefore, it is clear that the prosecution has established with cogent and convincing evidence that appellant Paryog Raj with aid and assistance of appellants Subash Chander and Mohan Lal trespassed into the house of the victim on the fateful day, where-after, she was subjected to attack by them and sulphuric acid was poured on her face and body which resulted in grievous injuries to her. Thus, charges for offences under Section 451/326 RPC stand established against appellant Paryog Raj, whereas charges for offences under Sections 451/326/109 stand established against appellants Mohan Lal and Subash Chander. So far as the appellant Simran Singh is concerned, there is no evidence on record to show that he has aided or abetted the main culprit appellant Paryog Raj in commission of the crime. Therefore, charges against him have not been established. 40. That takes us to the question of sentence. Learned counsels for the appellants have submitted that the occurrence is about 35 years old and the appellants have suffered trial for about 13 years and the instant appeal is pending before this Court for the last about 22 years. During this period, the appellants have become senior citizens and they are more than 60 years of age at present. Learned counsels for the appellants have submitted that the occurrence is about 35 years old and the appellants have suffered trial for about 13 years and the instant appeal is pending before this Court for the last about 22 years. During this period, the appellants have become senior citizens and they are more than 60 years of age at present. It has been further submitted that the son of appellant Mohan Singh is suffering from a serious neurological disorder and in case he is sent to serve the sentence, that has been imposed upon him by the trial Court, it will lead to great difficulties to his son. It has also been submitted that appellant Paryog Raj is a heart patient and needs constant medical attention which is not possible in jail. On these grounds, it has been submitted that a lenient view may be taken by reducing the sentence awarded by the trial Court against them. 41. There can be no doubt that pendency of trial for a long period and the long pendency of the appeal may be one of the considerations for reducing the sentence. The medical condition of a convict or his domestic problems can also be taken into consideration for reducing the sentence, but in the instant case, we have also to see the nature of crime which has been committed by the convicted appellants. A young girl who was aged about 16 years at the relevant time has been made to suffer a very pathetic life because of disfiguration of her face and neck. Every person, especially a young female aspires to look beautiful and when this aspiration of a girl is mutilated by a rampaging and egoistic male, whose offer of marriage has been spurned by the said girl, it leads to indelible scars not only on the face and body of the victim but also on her psyche. The whole life of an acid victim gets shattered and it becomes very difficult for her to survive in the male dominated society. It is only for this reason that Legislature has now incorporated Section 326 A RPC/IPC so as to make acid attack a distinct and serious offence. Thus, there is no scope for reducing the sentence in such horrific crimes, even if there may be delay in trial and delay in disposal of the appeal. It is only for this reason that Legislature has now incorporated Section 326 A RPC/IPC so as to make acid attack a distinct and serious offence. Thus, there is no scope for reducing the sentence in such horrific crimes, even if there may be delay in trial and delay in disposal of the appeal. Similarly, notwithstanding the personal problems of the convicted appellants on account of ailments and domestic issues, it may not be appropriate to make it a ground for reduction of sentence, particularly when the trial Court has not awarded a severe sentence upon the convicted appellants and has, in fact, taken a very lenient view of the matter while awarding sentence against them. 42. There is, however, yet another aspect of the matter which requires to be noticed. The victim PW Chanchala Devi as per the evidence on record has undergone 11 surgeries. She had to be hospitalized at Chandigarh for months together. Therefore, she must have incurred a huge amount of money upon her treatment. During pendency of this appeal, an offer came from the appellants that they would like to compensate the victim by paying a certain amount of money so that she can meet the expenses of her treatment. In fact, in terms of order passed by this Court during pendency of this appeal, the appellants deposited an amount of Rs.4.00 lacs with the registry of this court which is stated to be still lying deposited. It seems that, later on, the victim did not accede to the proposal of the appellants. It also appears that the victim filed an application seeking release of the aforesaid amount, but because there was no compromise, as such, the amount could not be released in her favour. 43. What comes to the fore from aforesaid circumstances, is that, though the convicted appellants do not deserve any leniency in the matter of reduction of sentence, yet this Court has also to take into account the fact that the victim needs to be compensated. The learned trial Court has imposed a fine of Rs.40,000/- each (in both offences) upon the convicted appellants and has directed that the same may be released in favour of the victim as compensation presumably in exercise of its powers under Section 545 of J&K Cr.PC. The learned trial Court has imposed a fine of Rs.40,000/- each (in both offences) upon the convicted appellants and has directed that the same may be released in favour of the victim as compensation presumably in exercise of its powers under Section 545 of J&K Cr.PC. Thus, if the judgment of the trial Court as regards the sentence part is upheld, the victim would get only Rs.1,20,000/- as compensation. This amount in present times is very meager and the same would not be grossly inadequate to take care of the expenses that may have been incurred by the victim on her treatment. 44. Having regard to the nature of injuries which the victim has suffered and the amount of expenses that she may have incurred upon her treatment, a way out has to be found so that a balance is struck between the need to impose adequate sentence of imprisonment upon the convicted appellants so as to have an deterrent effect upon such like criminals and the need to compensate the victim. 45. Accordingly, while convicting the appellant Paryog Raj, Subash Chander and Mohan Lal for offences under Sections 326 & 451 RPC, the sentence of imprisonment in proof of offence under Section 326 RPC awarded against them is reduced to 4 years simple imprisonment. At the same time, the sentence of fine imposed on them in proof of offence under Section 326 RPC is enhanced to Rs.2.50 lacs in cases of each of the aforenamed appellants. So far as the sentence in proof of offence under Section 451 RPC is concerned, the same shall remain unaltered. The amount of fine imposed upon the aforenamed appellants in both the offences shall be recovered from the amount already deposited with the Registry and the same shall be released in favour of the victim. Balance amount, if any, shall be deposited by the convicted appellants within one month, failing which, they shall undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of one year. 46. This Court feels that, having regard to the nature of injuries suffered by the victim, even the fine, that has been imposed upon the convicted appellants, which has been directed to be paid to the victim as compensation, may not be enough to compensate her. 46. This Court feels that, having regard to the nature of injuries suffered by the victim, even the fine, that has been imposed upon the convicted appellants, which has been directed to be paid to the victim as compensation, may not be enough to compensate her. In addition to compensation that may be paid to the victim out of the fine imposed upon the convicted appellants, she deserves to be compensated by the J&K State Legal Services Authority under the J&K Victim Compensation Scheme, 2019. Therefore, in exercise of powers under Section 545-A (2) of J&K CrPC, it is recommended that the State Legal Services Authority shall, after considering the matter in accordance with Jammu and Kashmir Victim Compensation Scheme, 2019, award additional compensation in favour of the victim. This would include the entitlement of the victim to additional compensation under Prime Minister?s National Relief Fund and Central Victim Compensation Fund Scheme which are part of the Jammu and Kashmir Victim Compensation Scheme, 2019. 47. In view of what has been discussed hereinbefore, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of appellant Simran Singh is set aside and he is acquitted of the charges. His bail and surety bonds are discharged. The conviction of appellants Paryog Raj, Subash Chander and Mohan Lal for offences under Sections 326/451 RPC is upheld. They are sentenced in the manner indicated hereinbefore. It is directed that the victim shall be compensated out of the fine imposed upon the convicted appellants. It is further recommended that J&K State Legal Services Authority shall consider the payment of additional compensation to the victim in the manner indicated above. 48. The convicted appellants shall surrender before the trial Court within four weeks from today. Their bail and surety bonds shall stand cancelled and in case they do not surrender within the aforesaid period, the trial Court shall proceed against them in accordance with law and upon their apprehension/surrender, they shall be sent to jail for serving the balance sentence. Record of the trial Court along with a copy of this judgment be sent back.