ORDER : 1. The present appeal is against the judgment dated 29 th November 2001 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Rajsamand in Sessions Case No. 60/2001 titled as State vs. Om Prakash . The learned trial Court convicted the appellant for the offences under Sections 307 , 326 and 324 of IPC and imposed the punishment which are as under: Offence U/s Sentence Fine 307 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.50,000/- 326 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.50,000/- 324 IPC Three Years’ Rigorous Imprisonment Rs.5,000/- All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The facts as noted from the record of the trial Court are that a written report dated 23.09.2000, Ex-P1, was submitted by one Suresh Chandra to S.H.O. PS. Rajnagar, District Rajsamand. In the report, he stated that someone had thrown chemical on his son while he was returning home after closing his shop around 11:45 PM. According to him, the incident occurred so fast that he (victim Manish Jain) was unable to understand or identify anyone. Rajnagar, District Rajsamand. In the report, he stated that someone had thrown chemical on his son while he was returning home after closing his shop around 11:45 PM. According to him, the incident occurred so fast that he (victim Manish Jain) was unable to understand or identify anyone. The written report dated 23.09.2000, Ex-P1, is reproduced as under: ^^fyf[kr fjiksVZ Jh lqjs'k pUnz }kjk Fkkukf/kdkjh iqfyl Fkkuk jktuxj ftyk jktlean ¼bZ,Dlih&1½ fnukad 23-9-2000 fnukad 22-9-2000 Jheku Fkkuk vf/kdkjh egksn; th jktlean ftyk & jktlean fo"k;%&euh"k ds psgjs ij rstkc Mkyus dh ?kVuk dh fjiksVZ ckcr egksn; th euh"k tSu iq= Jh lqjs'k pUnz th tSu ¼inekorh Hkkstuky;½ ¼ikyhoky ekdsZV ds lkeus½ ds Åij viuh nqdku can djds 11-45 cts ?kj tkrs le; ekyfu;k pkSd esa fdlh us mlds psgjs ij rstkc Qsad fn;k ftlls mldh vka[kks vkSj psgjs ij cgqr vf/kd izHkko gqvk o iwjs 'kjhj ij vlj QSy x;k ;gka rd fd diM+s rd mlh {k.k rstkc ds izHkko ls ty x;sA ?kVuk bruh rhoz xfr ls ?kVh fd mls fdlh dks le>us o igpkuus dk ekSdk Hkh ugha feykA vkSj gesa ekywe iM+rs gh jktuxj ftyk fpfdRlky; esa bykt gsrw ysdj vk x,A vr% vkils fuosnu gS fd mijksDr ?kVuk ds fo"k; esa ,Q-vkbZ-vkj- ntZ djokus dh d`ik djkosa ,oa rRi'pkr vko';d dk;Zokgh djds ?kVuk ds eqtfje dk irk yxkus dk d"V djkosaA ,lMh@& lhy dk;Zokgh iqfyl ceqdke th-,p- jktlean fnukad 23-09-2000 le; 0-40 ,-,e- ¼1½ ;g fjiksVZ izkFkhZ Jh lqjs'kpUnz iq= ftus'oj yky th tSu mez 48 lky iS'kk lqUnj Vkdht esa lgk;d izca/kd fuoklh ekyfu;k pkSd dkadjksyh Fkkuk jktuxj us ceqdke th-,p- is'k dhA ¼ 2½ etewu fjiksVZ ls ekeyk vijk/k /kkjk 324@326 vkbZ-ih-lh- dk odwok esa vkuk ik;k tkus ls ekSds ij vko';d dk;Zokgh 'kq: dh Fkkus ij igqap izdj.k dk;e gksxkA ,lMh@& Fkkuk jktuxj fnukad&23-9-2000 le;&1-30 ,-,e- ¼1½ ;g fjiksVZ izkFkhZ Jh lqjs'kpUnz tSu }kjk is'k 'kqnk ,-,l-vkbZ- ukFkwflag }kjk Fkkus ij ykdj is'k dhA ¼2½ etewu fjiksVZ ls vijk/k /kkjk 324] 326 vkbZ-ih-lh- dk odq,s esa vkuk ik;k tkus ls eqd- u- 610@2000 tqeZ lnj esa ntZ dj vuqla/kku ,-,l- vkbZ- Jh dj.kflag vkbZ@lh vkW-ih- dkadjksyh ds ftEes fd;k x;kA ¼3½ ,Q-vkbZ-vkj- izfr;ka fu;ekuqlkj tkjh dh xbZA ,p bZ&,lMh&,Q vkbZ&,lMh&ts** 3 . On the said written report, Ex-P1, an FIR, Ex-P2, was registered bearing No.610/2000 for offences under Sections 324 and 326 IPC against unknown person. The accused was arrested on 01.10.2000. On the said written report, Ex-P1, an FIR, Ex-P2, was registered bearing No.610/2000 for offences under Sections 324 and 326 IPC against unknown person. The accused was arrested on 01.10.2000. The police conducted the investigation and filed the charge-sheet against the accused appellant. 4. The learned trial Court framed the charges against the appellant for offence under Sections 324 , 326 and 307 of the IPC on 24.03.2001. 5. The accused appellant denied the charges and claimed trial. On the prosecution side, 14 witnesses were produced in evidence which are PW-1 Manish Kumar, PW-2 Suresh Chandra, PW-3 Prakash Chandra, PW-4 Rishiraj, PW-5 Rajkumar, PW-6 Kishan Singh, PW-7 Dr. Prem Kumar Chhajed, PW-8 Kaid Johar, PW-9 Abdul Kadir, PW-10 Jitendra Kumar, PW-11 Manohar Lal, PW-12 Dr. G.L. Dadh, PW-13 Dr. Swaroop Meena and PW-14 Om Prakash. 6. In documentary evidence, 18 documents were exhibited. In defence, no witness or documentary evidence was produced by the accused appellant. The learned trial Court recorded the statement of accused appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C.. After recording the evidence, the learned trial Court passed the judgment dated 29.11.2001 whereby the accused appellant was convicted for offences under Sections 324 , 326 and 307 of the IPC. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Chaitanya Gehlot along with Ms. Vandana Prajapati questioned the judgment passed by the learned trial Court whereby the accused was punished for offence under Sections 324 , 326 and 307 of the IPC by which the learned trial Judge imposed the maximum punishment i.e. life imprisonment. Further, while passing the maximum punishment, the learned trial Court failed to consider the serious contradictions and infirmities in the story of the prosecution and the statement of witnesses as produced by them and further important witness the two doctors who treated the victim were not produced in evidence. 8. To begin with, the learned counsel submitted that the prosecution story is based on the written report lodged by one Suresh Chandra (father of the victim, Manish Jain) whose statement was also recorded as PW-2 by the learned trial Court. In the written report, no person was named and since inception there was no allegation against the appellant. 8. To begin with, the learned counsel submitted that the prosecution story is based on the written report lodged by one Suresh Chandra (father of the victim, Manish Jain) whose statement was also recorded as PW-2 by the learned trial Court. In the written report, no person was named and since inception there was no allegation against the appellant. The learned counsel further submitted that without his (accused appellant) name appearing in the written report which was also converted into an FIR and without his presence being proved or shown immediately after or at the time the incident by any eye-witness still he has been falsely implicated in the case by the police. The learned counsel submitted that as per the statement of PW-1 Manish Jain (victim) and PW-2 Suresh Chandra (complainant), the appellant was not named by both of them. It is therefore clear beyond any doubt that the appellant is neither concerned with nor related to the case. To support his argument, the counsel referred to the statement of PW-2, Suresh Chandra and statement of PW-1, Manish Jain (victim). It is therefore clear beyond any doubt that the appellant is neither concerned with nor related to the case. To support his argument, the counsel referred to the statement of PW-2, Suresh Chandra and statement of PW-1, Manish Jain (victim). The statements of both the witnesses, PW-1 and PW-2, are reproduced as under: PW-1, Manish Jain (victim) ^^Ekq[; ijh{k.k %& esjh T;wl dh nqdku dkadjksyh esa in~ekorh T;wl ds uke ls gSA esjh nwdku ij esjs vykok esjk HkkbZ fxjh'k cSBrk gSA fnukad 22-9-2000 dh ckr gSA vkseizdk'k eqyfte dh nwdku esjh nwdku ls 2 nwdku igys gSA vkseizdk'k ds ;gka eSaus ukSdjh dh FkhA eSaus ukSdjh NksM+dj esjh viuh nwdku ys yhA vkse izdk'k T;wl dh fxykl ds 10 :i;s ysrk Fkk eSa 6 :i;s ysrk FkkA eSa de iSls ysrk Fkk bl dkj.k eqyfte vkse izdk'k ds xzkgd VwVdj esjh nwdku ij vkus yxsA mlus ,d nks ckj /kedh nh fd ;g vPNk ugha dj jgk gS bldk vUtke cgqr cqjk gksxkA ?kVuk ds fnu lk<+s X;kjg ikSus ckjg cts jkr dks eSa nqdku cUn dj vius ?kj tk jgk FkkA esjs dks jkLrs esa izdk'k tSu feyk FkkA izdk'k eksVj lkbZfdy ls tk jgs FksA eSa ekyfu;k pkSd tk jgk Fkk esjs ihNs iSjksa dh vkokt vk;h Fkh fQj eSaus ihNs eqM+dj ns[kk rks eqyfte vkse izdk'k Fkk ftlus esjs psgjs ij rstkc Mky fn;kA ml oDr esjs tyu gqbZ vkSj vka[kksa dh jks'kuh pyh x;hA fQj eSa tksj ls fpYykus yxkA fQj eSa csgks'k gks x;kA fQj eq>s vLirky ys x;sA esjs dks mn;iqj vLirky esa HkrhZ djk;k FkkA 5 fnu ckn eq>s gks'k vk;k FkkA fQj eSaus lkjh ?kVuk iqfyl okyksa dks crk;hA esjs firkth o HkkbZ dks Hkh eSaus lkjh ckr crk;hA fQj esjk bykt t;iqj djok;kA bykt djkus ls dksbZ QdZ ugha iM+kA vka[kksa dh jks'kuh pyh x;hA vka[kksa dh jks'kuh fcYdqy lekIr gks x;hA uksV & xokg euh"k dk psgjk iw.kZr% dq:i gks x;k gS nksuksa vka[kksa ds fu'kku Hkh utj ugha vk jgs gSa iwjh rjg can gS] ukd] gksB] xky] dku vkfn lHkh vax rstkc ls iw.kZr% tydj psgjk dq:i gks x;k gS rFkk blds 'kjhj ij da/ks ds ikl Hkqtkvksa ij Nkrh ij o iSjksa ij Hkh rstkc ls tys gq, dkQh fgLls ij fu'kku utj vk jgs gSaA izfrijh{kk }kjk vf/koDrk Jh psrU; xgyksr cpko i{k & eqy0 vkseizdk'k dh nwdku nks xM+k gqvk FkkA ;g 2&3 ckj >xM+k fdrus fdrus le; ds vUrjky gqvk] ugha crk ldrk fQj dgk 15&15] 20&20 fnu ckn >xM+k gqvkA bl ?kVuk ls tks eq> ij rstkc Mkyk x;k gS ls djhc 15&20 fnu igys vkse izdk'k ls esjk >xM+k gqvk FkkA mlus eq>s /kedh nh fd rw ,slk dj jgk gS mldk vUtke cgqr cqjk gksxkA eSaus nwdku yxk;h mlds ckn esjs lkFk tks okjnkr gqbZ rc rd eSa 6 :i;s izfr T;wl fxykl csprk FkkA eqyfte dh nqdku ds vykok T;wl dh vksj dksbZ nwdku tc eSa eqy0 ds ;gka ukSdjh djrk Fkk rc ml cktkj esa ugha FkhA esjs lkFk tks rstkc dh ?kVuk gqbZ] ml le; esjh o eqy0 dh nqdku ds vykok nwljh bl ekdsZV esa vkSj dksbZ nwdku ugha FkhA ek;k okyh nwdku can Fkh ml le; ml ij dke py jgk FkkA tks T;wl o vU; vkbZVe dh nwdku yxk jgk FkkA tc tc eqyfte us eq>s /kedh nh mldh eSaus dksbZ dk;ZokbZ gsrq dgha bRryk ugha dhA ?kVuk ds fnu ekyfu;k pkSd esa izdk'k eq>s feyk tks ckr djds ljkZQk cktkj dh rjQ fudy x;sA izdk'k th ds ckn 4&5 feuV ckn gh eSa uqDdM+ ij igawp x;k FkkA ?kVuk dh loZizFke lwpuk eSaus iqfyl dks nh o eka cki HkSa;k dks Hkh nhA bl ?kVuk ds 02 ?kaVs ds vUnj eSaus vius firkth dks dksbZ ckr ugha crk;hA ;g eq>s irk ugha fd esjs firkth us ?kVuk ds 2 ?kaVs ckn ;g ,Q-vkbZ-vkj- ntZ djk nh gksA gks'k vkus ij ?kVuk ds 4&5 fnu ckn esjs iqfyl c;ku gq, FksA ;g xyr gS fd iqfyl c;ku esa eSaus eqyfte vkse izdk'k }kjk rstkc Mkyus okys o vU; lHkh dFku >wBs fd;s gksA ;g dguk xyr gS fd ml le; ykbZVas can gks cfYd ykbZVas ty jgh FkhA** PW-2, Suresh Chandra ^^eq[; ijh{k.kA%& fnukad 22-9-2000 dh ckr gSA esjs yM+ds dk uke euh"k gSA ikyhoky ekdsZV dkadjksyh esa blds T;wl dh nwdku gSA jkf= dks lk<+s X;kjg ikSus ckjg ds chp esjk yM+dk euh"k ?kj vk jgk FkkA blds Åij fdlh us rstkc Mky fn;kA mlds 'kjhj ds psgjs ij rstkc Mky fn;k Fkk ftlls mldh vka[ks o eqag ij tyu gksdj esjk psgjk ty x;kA ml oDr mldks utj Hkh ugha vk jgk FkkA eSa] esjk yM+dk fxjh'k dqekj gYyk gksus ij ge ?kVukLFky ij x;s FksA eSa o esjk yM+dk o esjs feyus okys mldks ge vLirky ys x;sA ml oDr mldk psgjk ty x;k Fkk diM+s ty x;s Fks o csgks'kh gkyr esa FkkA ml oDr euh"k cksyus dh fLFkfr esa ugha FkkA ?kVuk ds iwoZ vkse izdk'k dh nwdku ij ukSdjh djrk FkkA euh'k us eqyfte vkse izdk'k dh nwdku NksM+dj viuh u;h nwdku yxk nhA vkse izdk'k T;wl dh fxykl ds 10 :i;s ysrk Fkk o esjk cPpk 6 :i;s ysrk FkkA blls eqyfte vkse izdk'k dh nwdku ds xzkgd VwVdj euh"k dh nqdku ij vkus yxsA euh"k 5 fnu rd mn;iqj vLirky esa bykt gsrq HkrhZ jgk mlds ckn mlus c;ku fn;s rc irk pyk fd vkse izdk'k us ml ij rstkc MkykA ?kVuk ds fnu euh"k csgks'k FkkA eSus iqfyl esa fjiksVZ nh Fkh tks izn'kZ ih&1 gS ftl ij , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj gSA psd ,Q-vkbZ-vkj izih&2 gS ftl ij , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj gSA rstkc ls esjs cPps dk iwjk psgjk ty x;k] vka[kksa dh jks'kuh pyh x;hA jktlean esa vLirky eas bykt djkus ds ckn euh"k dks mn;iqj ys x;s] 5&6 jkst ogka bykt djkus ds ckn t;iqj ys x;s ogka 20&22 fnu bykt djok;kA mn;iqj ds bykt djus okys MkDVj dk uke irk ughaA t;iqj ds Mk0 lforkpUnzk vkpk;Z vkSj Mk0 eqds'k 'kekZ tks us= fpfdRld Fks] ls bykt djok;kA iw.kZ bykt djkus ds ckonwn Hkh euh"k dh vka[k dh jks'kuh ugha vk;hA izfrijh{kk }kjk vf/koDrk Jh psrU; xgyksr cpko i{k dh vksj ls & ?kVuk LFky ls esjk edku 50&60 dne dh nwjh ij gSA ckgj gYyk gksus ij eq>s gekjs iM+kSlh us crk;k ftl ij eSa ekSds ij x;kA fdjk;snkj us ns[kdj crk;k FkkA eSa ekSds ij igq¡pk rc euh"k edku ds uhps fpYyk jgk Fkk] mldk psgjk igpkuus esa ugha vk jgk FkkA ?kVukLFky ls gekjs ?kj rd euh"k Lo;a pydj vk;k ;k vkSj dksbZ ysdj vk;k] eq>s irk ughaA eSaus ekSds ij euh"k dks ns[kk rc mldk psgjk rstkc ls tyk gqvk Fkk o diM+s Hkh rstkc ls tys gq, FksA ml le; fdlh us ;g ugha crk;k fd ;g ?kVuk dSls gqbZA ?kVuk dSls gqbZ bl lEcU/k esa lcls igys euh"k us gh gks'k vkus ij eq>s crk;kA izn'kZ ih&1 esa eSaus lh ls Mh Hkkx eSus Lo;a us fy[kk;k Fkk] fdlh ds dgus ls ugha fy[kk;kA** 9. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the statement of PW-2 shows that for five days, while the son was in hospital and was not in a position to state anything, therefore, he did not name the accused in his statement. According to learned counsel, this witness further stated the following facts in his cross-examination : ^^?kVukLFky ls gekjs ?kj rd euh"k Lo;a pydj vk;k ;k vkSj dksbZ ysdj vk;k] eq>s irk ughaA ml le; fdlh us ;g ugha crk;k fd ;g ?kVuk dSls gqbZA ?kVuk dSls gqbZ bl lEcU/k esa lcls igys euh"k us gh gks'k vkus ij eq>s crk;kA** 9.1 On the basis of the above mentioned lines, as extracted from the cross-examination of PW-2, Suresh Chandra, the learned counsel submitted that this witness clearly stated that he was not aware as to who caused the alleged unfortunate incident. Further, on one hand in his examination-in-chief he stated that when he heard the noise of his son Manish Jain he rushed to the spot, however, he made contradictory statement in his cross- examination where he stated that he is not aware as to whether Manish Jain came to the house at his own or somebody brought him. This, by itself, shows that the evidence of PW-2 is not reliable and further it leaves no doubt about the fact that he was not present on the spot where the alleged unfortunate incident happened. 9.2 The learned counsel further pointed out the fact that initially his son, Manish Jain, did not name anyone. His son informed him only when he became conscious after 5 days in the hospital. 10. The counsel further referred to the statement of PW-2, who is the victim in this case i.e. Manish Jain. It is an admitted fact as per the statement of PW-1 and PW-2 that both of them did not see anyone causing the alleged unfortunate incident. PW-1 himself in clear words stated that he did not see anyone throwing the acid or chemical on him, however, he improved his version in the cross-examination by narrating a story of some rivalry on account of selling juice at a reduced rate and, therefore, according to PW-1, the appellant committed the offence. The counsel pointed out that the incident is of 22.09.2000 and appellant accused was arrested after 8-9 days on 1.10.2000. The counsel pointed out that the incident is of 22.09.2000 and appellant accused was arrested after 8-9 days on 1.10.2000. The counsel referred to the date of arrest because the prosecution further presented the version of another witness i.e. PW-3 Prakash Chandra who stated to be the eye-witness and, therefore, his statement being relevant was taken as a basis by the learned trial Court to convict the appellant. He, therefore, took us to the statement of PW-3 Prakash Chandra. The statement of PW-3 Prakash Chandra is reproduced as under: PW-3 ^^eq[; ijh{k.k%& fn0 22-9-2000 dks jkf= ds djhc lok X;kjg cts eSa VªkUliksVZ vkWfQl ls ?kj tk jgk FkkA esjs cPps ds lEcU/k ds ckjs esa foeypan tSu ds ?kj ij tk jgk FkkA tks jsrh eksgYys esa gSA eSa viuh eksVj lkbZfdy ls clLVs.M ls ekyfu;k pkSd dh rjQ tk jgk FkkA euh’k viuh T;wl dh nwdku ls vius ?kj dh vksj tk jgk FkkA ,d yM+dk ftlds gkFk esa rjy inkFkZ Fkk] tks gkftj vnkyr esa mifLFkr gS ftldk uke vkse izdk'k gS bls gkFk esa rjy inkFkZ ys tkrs ns[kkA fQj eSa ogka ls vkxs fudy x;kA fQj fpYykus dh vkokt gqbZ rks eSa okfil eqM+dj vk;k o ns[kk fd euh"k jksM+ ij iM+k gqvk fpYyk jgk FkkA psgjs ij dksbZ rjy inkFkZ Mkyus ls tyu gks jgh FkhA eSa okfil tc vk;k rks vkse izdk'k LdwVj ysdj tk jgk FkkA fQj ?kVukLFky ij buds firkth vkSj HkkbZ o eksgYys ds yksx ogka vk x;sA psgjk ty tkus ls o ?kk;y gks tkus ls euh'k gks'k eas ugha Fkk] fQj mls ogka ls vLirky ys x;sA izfrijh{kk }kjk vf/koDrk Jh psrU; xgyksr cpko i{k dh vksj ls %& eSa euh"k ls feydj FkksM+k vkxs x;k djhc 100&150 ehVj dh nwjh ij fpYykus dh vkokt vk;h rks okfil vk;kA eSaus tkrs oDr vkseizdk'k o euh'k nksuksa dks ns[kk FkkA bu nksuksa ds chp djhc 50 QhV dh nwjh FkhA ml oDr ykbZVsa ty jgh FkhA vklikl pkjksa rjQ edku gSA rjy inkFkZ okyh ckr iqfyl c;ku eas fy[kkbZ FkhA** 10.1 The perusal of statement of PW-3 Prakash Chand shows that he, by his statement, presented himself to be an eye-witness of the case. According to him, he saw the appellant carrying a liquid substance who crossed him on that day and immediately thereafter he also stated to have seen the victim Manish Jain. According to him, he saw the appellant carrying a liquid substance who crossed him on that day and immediately thereafter he also stated to have seen the victim Manish Jain. To support his version, he stated that he just crossed 100-150 mtr. when he heard the sound of PW-1 Manish Jain and when he returned, he saw the accused and the victim, Manish Jain, who were at a distance of just 50 feet. Therefore, this witness, according to prosecution, as presented, is an eye-witness and proved the presence of the accused appellant on the spot and his evidence is sufficient to convict him. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the evidence and the version as given by the PW-3 is not reliable rather serious doubtful. According to the learned counsel, this witness was not even present at the time when the unfortunate incident happened with the victim Manish Jain. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the evidence and the version as given by the PW-3 is not reliable rather serious doubtful. According to the learned counsel, this witness was not even present at the time when the unfortunate incident happened with the victim Manish Jain. According to the learned counsel, the statement of PW-3 Prakash Chandra were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the Police on 28.09.2000 which is as under: ^^Jh izdk'k pUnz firk c`tyky th tSu mez 48 o"kZ is'kk&VªkaliksVZ O;olk; ¼tsih jksM ykbZUl jktuxj½ fu- iapjRu dkWEiysDl dkadjksyh Fkkuk jktuxj us nfj;k¶r ij c;ku fd;k fd fnukad 22-9-2000 dks jkf= ds djhc 11-15 cts eSa esjs HkxokUnk eksM fLFkr VªkaliksVZ ls jokuk gksdj ejss ?kj vk jgk Fkk ejss cPps ds lEcU/k ds ckjs esa Jh foey th tSu ds ?kj tks eafnj ekxZ Jh clUr dqekj th tSu o fddlk ds edku ds ikl jgrs gS ftuds ?kj ekyfu;k pkSd gksdj tk jgk Fkk eSa esjh eksVj lkbZfdy ls cl LVs.M ls ekyfu;k pkSd dh rjQ eqMk o pkjHkqtk eafnj ls igys eq>s vkseizdk'k rsth gkFk esa ,d cksryuqek oLrq ys tkrk gqvk feyk o mlls djhc 10&15 dne vkxs euh"k vius ?kj tkrs gq, feyk eSa bu nksuksa dks esa igys ls gh vPNh rjg tkurk g¡wA eSa tSls gh ljkZQk cktkj fLFkr ekaxhyky pksjfM;k dh nqdku ds cjkcj igq¡pk rks eq>s ekyfu;k pkSd dh rjQ ls ,dne fp[kus fpykus dh vkokt lqukbZ nh eS ,dne ogka :d x;k vksj eSus esjh eksVjlkbZfdy dks fiNs dh rjQ eqMk;k] rc gh eq>s vkseizdk'k rsth fxjrk iMrk Hkkxrk gqvk utj vk;k ,oa Mweth okys guqeku dh xyh ds eksM ij og ,d ne fxj x;k o [kM+k gksdj ml xyh esa Hkkx x;kA ekyfu;k pkSd dh rjQ ls fp[kus fpYykus dh vkokt vkus ij eSa esjh eksVjlkbZfdy ls ekyfu;k pkSd igq¡pk ogka euh"k cgqr cqjh rjg ls fp[k jgk Fkk eSa ;g ugha le> ldk dh blds D;k gqvk gSA mlh oDr euh"k ds firk Jh lqjs'kpUnz th o HkkbZ fxjh'k dqekj o vU; yksx ogka vk x;sA ge lcus ns[kk fd euh"k ds mij dksbZ Toyu'khy inkFkZ Mkyk x;k Fkk ftlls og fp[k jgk Fkk o mlls dqN fn[kkbZ Hkh ugha ns jgk Fkk D;ksafd og lMd ij vlgk; voLFkk esa iMk Fkk eSa ;g le>k x;k fd euh"k ds Åij rstkc QSdk x;k gSA eSus fxjh'k dqekj dks dgk fd mlls rqjUr vLirky ysdj pyksA eS o fxjh'k dqekj esjh eksVjlkbZfdy ls euh"k dks vLirky ys x;s FkksMh njs ckn euh"k ds firk Jh lqjs'kpUnz th Hkh ogka vk x;sA euh"k jkLrs esa gh v)ZpsrukoLFkk esa Fkk mlus dqN Hkh ugha cksyk geus euh"k dks vLirky esa HkrhZ djk;k fQj eSus fxjh'k dqekj dks lkbZM esa ys tkdj ;g crk;k fd ?kVuk ls rqjUr igys tc eSa ekyfu;k pkSd gksrk gqvk foeyth tSu ds ?kj tk jgk Fkk rc eSaus pkjHkqtk eafnj ds ikl vkseizdk'k rsth dks gkFk esa cksryuqek oLrq ys tkrs gq, ns[kk o euh"k dks mlls FkksM vkxs ?kj dh rjQ tkrs gq, ns[kk Fkk vksj tc eSa ekaxhyky pksjfM;k dh nqdku ds lkeus igq¡pk rc eq>s ekyfu;k pkSd dh rjQ ls fpYykus vkokt lqukbZ nsus ij eSa ogka :dk vksj eq>s vkseizdk'k rsth ekyfu;k pkSd dh rjQ ls fxjrk iMrk gqvk fn[kkbZ fn;k ,oa vketh okys guqeku dh xyh ij og iNkM [kkdj fxjk fQj mBdj xyh esa Hkkx x;kA bl rjQ eq>s iwjk fo'okl gS fd euh’k ds Åij vkseizdk'k rsth us Mkyk gSA 10.2 When the incident was witnessed by PW-3 or this witness has proved the presence of the appellant, if his version is believed, he (PW-3) was the first person on the spot who saw the victim but this fact he did not inform to the father of the victim i.e. PW-2 Suresh Chandra who lodged the written report, Ex-P1 on 23.09.2000. If PW-3 had seen the appellant, which he has stated by the improving his version during the statement record in the trial Court, then he would have clearly informed PW-2 about the presence which could have been recorded in the written report dated 23.09.2000. Not informing the name of appellant from 22.09.2000 to 28.09.2000, by PW-3 is fatal to the story of prosecution and declares his version totally doubtful. 10.3 It is only when the victim Manish Jain got consciousness after remaining admitted in the hospital for five days and he named the accused appellant then on that basis PW-3 improved his version which he stated in his statement to police on 28.09.2000 and in the trial Court. According to the learned counsel, the learned trial Court failed to notice serious contradictions in the statement of PW-3 as given to the police after 5 days on 28.09.2000 and as recorded by the trial Court. The contradiction clearly shows that he was not present at the time of the incident, or in case he reached the spot, he did not see the accused appellant at that time which he tried to present or prove by improving his statement recorded before the trial Court. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the statement cannot be the basis for convicting the appellant. 11. An important contradiction, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner is that victim Manish Jain stated that he noticed some sound of footsteps of someone comimg from behind however, he did not see anyone and, therefore, it cannot be stated that accused was present and further, the injuries as suffered on the face by the victim shows that somebody had thrown the chemical on the face from the front which caused injury majorly on the face. The injuries cannot come on the face if somebody would attempt to throw the chemical from behind. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the statements of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 if read along with their Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements as recorded by the police would not lead to a definitive conclusion that the accused appellant had any rivalry with the victim Manish Jain and on the alleged date he was involved in throwing the chemical substance on him on account of which he suffered to serious injuries. According to the learned counsel, the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and in complete disregard of the above the learned trial Court committed a serious mistake while passing the judgment of conviction. 12. The counsel also pointed out that the victim was immediately taken to the hospital where he was treated by the different doctors in different hospitals. Three doctors were produced in evidence by the prosecution, namely, PW-12 Dr. G. L. Dadh, PW-14 Ram Swaroop Meena and PW-7 Dr. Prem Kumar Chajed. Dr. Ram Swaroop Meena was the first doctor who gave his report in the form of Ex-P15 dated 23.09.2000, however, he did not treat the victim Manish Jain. He just stated about the injuries which the victim suffered in his report and kept his final opinion pending. The victim was shifted for further treatment from Government Medical Hospital, Rajsamand to M.B. Hospital Udaipur where he was given some treatment by Dr. G. L. Dadh whose statement were recorded as PW-12. According to the learned counsel, this witness did not state anything regarding the injuries and therefore, has not supported the story of the prosecution. 12.1 The learned counsel then further submitted that the victim Manish Jain was shifted for further treatment from Government Hospital, Udaipur to SMS Hospital, Jaipur where he was treated for his injuries but the two doctors who treated for the injuries were not produced for examination by the prosecution during the trial. As per the learned counsel Dr. KK. Manjul and Dr. Savita S. Chandra treated the victim at Jaipur but they were not produced in evidence by the prosecution. Therefore, according to him, the material witness i.e. the two doctors who treated him at Jaipur did not appear for examination and in the absence of which there was no expert opinion and evidence on the basis of which it could be stated that as to what injuries were suffered and the treatment given and further the gravity of the injuries. The prosecution produced Dr. Prem Kumar Chajed as PW-7 who was working and posted as Professor and Head of the Plasic Surgery at SMS Hospital, Jaipur and this witness stated that he did not treat the victim. According to PW-7, the victim was treated by Dr. The prosecution produced Dr. Prem Kumar Chajed as PW-7 who was working and posted as Professor and Head of the Plasic Surgery at SMS Hospital, Jaipur and this witness stated that he did not treat the victim. According to PW-7, the victim was treated by Dr. Savita S. Chandra, who also works in the same department, however, her statement was not recorded by the learned trial court as she was not produced in evidence. The act of the prosecution of not producing the Dr. Savita S. Chandra in evidence has destroyed the case of the prosecution and learned trial Court completely ignored this fact while passing the judgment of conviction. 12.2 According to the learned counsel, on one hand the important witnesses, the two doctors, who treated the victim were not produced in evidence and on the other hand PW-14 Dr. Ram Swaroop Meena who himself stated before the trial Court that he is not the burn expert, however, he still gave his final opinion by way of Ex-P16 dated 17.11.2000 on the basis of the report of SMS Hospital, Jaipur by which he opined that the injuries were grievous in nature. When Dr. Ram Swaroop Meena, PW-14 did not treat the victim and also not a burn expert then his opinion, Ex-P16, should not have been considered or taken as a base by the learned trial Court to treat the injuries as grievous in nature and to punish the appellant with the maximum punishment for life imprisonment for alleged offences punishable under Sections 307 and 326 of IPC. On the basis of the above submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the accused appellant was falsely implicated in the present case and the learned trial Court committed the serious mistake by ignoring the material contradictions, absence of the statement of the two doctors who treated the victim and, therefore, the conviction cannot sustain and deserves to be quashed by this Court by allowing his appeal. 13. Per contra , the learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Prem Singh Panwar supported the judgment passed by the learned trial Court convicting of the accused appellant and stated that the presence of the accused was properly proved and explained by the PW-3 Prakash Chand and also the motive was proved by PW-1 Manish Jain (victim). 13. Per contra , the learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Prem Singh Panwar supported the judgment passed by the learned trial Court convicting of the accused appellant and stated that the presence of the accused was properly proved and explained by the PW-3 Prakash Chand and also the motive was proved by PW-1 Manish Jain (victim). Further, according to the learned Public Prosecutor, the victim remained in hospital for almost 25-30 days and due to the chemical burn as caused by the appellant the victim’s complete face got disfigured and he lost complete vision. Therefore, the appellant has been rightly convicted by the learned trial court and the judgment deserves no interference by this Hon’ble Court in the present facts and circumstances. 14. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 15. We shall now deal with the arguments as advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant on the basis of which he has questioned the judgment passed by the learned trial Court. We have minutely examined the written report dated 22.09.2000, Ex- P1, lodged by the father of the victim Suresh Chandra where he did not name the accused appellant rather no one was named. The trial Court recorded the statement of Suresh Chandra as PW-2 and this witness himself admitted that as the victim became unconscious on the spot itself and, therefore, there was no information to him as to who caused the incident. For five days, he had no information as to who caused the incident. It is only that the victim became conscious after treatment for five days in hospital he named the accused appellant on account of some alleged rivalry for selling the juice at a lower rate but according to the statement of the victim, recorded as PW-1 by the trial Court, he himself did not see anyone throwing chemical on him and according to him, he heard the footsteps of someone coming from behind. It is, therefore, clear and we are also in agreement with the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant that the presence of appellant was not proved by both the witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2) and, therefore, their evidence could not have been taken as the basis by the trial Court for convicting the appellant. It is, therefore, clear and we are also in agreement with the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant that the presence of appellant was not proved by both the witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2) and, therefore, their evidence could not have been taken as the basis by the trial Court for convicting the appellant. 15.1 As per the material witness, as per the prosecution, Prakash Chand Jain whose statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded by the police on 28.09.2000 and by the learned trial Court as PW-3, he has tried to present as if he is an eye-witness of the incident and also tried to prove the presence of the accused appellant on the spot at the time of unfortunate incident. As this witness is important according to prosecution and the learned trial Court has also taken his statement as a basis for convicting the appellant, therefore, this Court has minutely examined the statement of this witness. We have noted the serious contradictions in the version of PW-3 Prakash Chand Jain who stated to have saw the accused on the fateful day and also saw the victim and the accused at a distance of 50 mtr. From the victim. This witness also stated that he took the victim to the hospital, however, surprisingly and shockingly he did not inform this fact to the complainant who is the father of the victim i.e. Surech Chandra at whose instance and on whose written report the case was registered. This witness failed to state as to why he did not inform PW-2 about the presence of the appellant at the time of the incident and, therefore, the presence of PW-3, which he has tried to prove, at the time of the incident is doubtful and he is not the eye-witness. Therefore, the version as given by him by way of the statements cannot be considered to be true or be the basis of convicting the appellant. 16. Further, as the victim Manish Jain suffered the injuries majorly on his face which can occur only if somebody would throw the chemical substance from the front which has led to the disfigurement of the face and on account of which the victim has also complete loss of vision. According to the victim, the chemical substance was thrown from the back and the injuries cannot come if this version is to be believed. According to the victim, the chemical substance was thrown from the back and the injuries cannot come if this version is to be believed. It may be possible the somebody might have threw the chemical substance from the front, and therefore this Court also noted that due to this it was also rightly informed by PW-2 in his written report that things happened at such a pace i.e. son Manish Jain (the victim) could not understand and witness, therefore, the unknown person who caused the incident could not be identified and the benefit of this according to this Court goes to the accused appellant as PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 by their statements were unsuccessful in proving the presence of the appellant at the time of alleged unfortunate incident. 17. The contradictions as noted above have not been considered in depth by the learned trial Court in its judgment and in a cursory manner treated the version of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 as correct and on that basis, punished the appellant with the maximum punishment for the offences. 18. There is no dispute about the fact that the victim Manish Jain suffered 20% burn because of the unfortunate incident on account of which he suffered disfigurement of face and complete loss of vision, however, the prosecution was required to produce in witness the two doctors who treated him at Jaipur for the suffered injuries. The doctor, namely, Dr. K.K. Manjul and Dr. Savita S. Chandra who actually treated the victim for the injuries were not produced in evidence who could have explained the injuries as suffered and the nature of those injuries This carelessness and serious negligence on the part of the prosecution has destroyed its own story which it has tried to prove and the benefit of this also goes to the accused appellant. 18.1 As far as the statement of PW-14 Dr. Ram Swaroop Meena who himself admitted in his statement that he is not a burn expert and he just gave his final opinion in the form of Ex-P16 dated 17.11.2000 on the basis of report of SMS Hospital, Jaipur. 18.1 As far as the statement of PW-14 Dr. Ram Swaroop Meena who himself admitted in his statement that he is not a burn expert and he just gave his final opinion in the form of Ex-P16 dated 17.11.2000 on the basis of report of SMS Hospital, Jaipur. The opinion as given by PW-14 cannot be treated to be an expert opinion as per the injuries suffered by the victim Manish Jain and the expert opinion could have been given by the only by the doctors who treated the victim the injuries and only they could be state nature of injuries and therefore there was no actual medical opinion in regard to the injuries of the doctors who treated the victim and the benefit of this also goes in favour of the accused appellant. 19. On the basis of the above discussion and after examining the record of the trial Court at depth including the statement of all material witness stated to be relevant and an important, this Court has no hesitation in concluding that the appellant was not present at the time of alleged incident and PW1, PW-2 and PW-3 failed to prove his presence and further there were serious infirmities and contradictions in their version of the alleged incident and, therefore, their evidence is not sufficient to prove the presence and to convict him for the alleged offence. The absence of the relevant doctors who treated the victim in evidence has also proved to be fatal to the case of the prosecution and the benefit of which also goes to the accused appellant. 20. For the reasons as mentioned above, this Court finds that the learned trial Court had committed the serious mistake while punishing the accused appellant by the impugned judgment dated 29.11.2001 and, therefore, D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 942/2001 is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 29.11.2001 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Rajsamand in Sessions Case No.60/2001 is hereby quashed and set aside. 21. We further observe, even in case the trial Court had some reason to believe that the accused appellant had caused the alleged incident, though we have noted that the prosecution failed to prove that, even in those circumstances this Court finds that it is not a case in which the maximum punishment could have been imposed. 21. We further observe, even in case the trial Court had some reason to believe that the accused appellant had caused the alleged incident, though we have noted that the prosecution failed to prove that, even in those circumstances this Court finds that it is not a case in which the maximum punishment could have been imposed. The trial Court must be cautious and careful while imposing the maximum punishment for the offence punishable under Section 307 and 326 of the IPC. 22. The appellant is already on bail. His bail-bonds stands discharged. The record of the trial Court be sent back forthwith. 23. Keeping in view the provision of Section 437-A Cr.P.C./481 B.N.S.S., accused appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond in a sum of Rs. 25,000/- and a surety bond of the like amount, before the learned trial Court, which shall be made effective for a period of six months, to the effect that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition, against this judgment or for grant of leave, the accused appellant, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court as soon as he would be called upon to do so.