Judgment : Praveer Bhatnagar, J. 1. This criminal appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated 28.11.2019, passed by learned Additional District Judge, No.1 Sambhar Lake (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’) in Sessions Case No.2/2015, whereby, the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant, as under:- Under Section 326 -A IPC :- Life imprisonment, along with a fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in default of payment of the fine, to further undergo 4 months' Rigorous Imprisonment. Under Section 326 -B IPC :- Seven years' Rigorous Imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 25,000/-, and in default of payment of the fine, to further undergo 2 months rigorous imprisonment. 2. Succinctly, the facts are that on 02.09.2014, P.W. 3 Tara Devi, maternal grandmother of injured/victim P.W. 2 Kirti Sharma, gave a parcha bayan (Exhibit P-54) before the ASI Mangilal posted at Police Station Phulera, Jaipur Gramin, stating the fact that her granddaughter Harshita was suffering from “panijara” and she, along with her granddaughter Kirti Sharma and Harshita, went for “Jhada” before a Maharaj. It is also stated in the parcha bayan that the accused-appellant Rinkesh @ Rinki, son of Shankarlal, came on a motorcycle from the Phulera side and poured acid on PW 2 Kirti Sharma's head, face and body and fled on his bike. It is also described in Parcha Bayan that, upon hearing the scream of her granddaughter PW-2 Kirti, she and her other granddaughter PW-6 Harshita rushed to the Phulera Hospital. Due to the pouring of acid on Kirti’s face, got disfigured, and she received various burn injuries on her body parts. 3. Based on Parcha Bayan Exhibit P-54, FIR bearing No.162/2014 under Section 326 -B of IPC was lodged, and the Police, after investigation, chargesheeted the appellant under -A & 326-B of . 4. The charges were read over to the appellant, and the appellant sought a trial. The trial court recorded the statements of witnesses and the appellant's statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The appellant did not lead any evidence. 5. The trial court, after hearing, convicted the accused- appellant under Sections 326 -A & 326-B of the IPC , imposing the sentences mentioned above. 6. The trial court recorded the statements of witnesses and the appellant's statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The appellant did not lead any evidence. 5. The trial court, after hearing, convicted the accused- appellant under Sections 326 -A & 326-B of the IPC , imposing the sentences mentioned above. 6. Eschewing, the merits of the case, learned counsel for the appellant has prayed that while maintaining the conviction, the substantive sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone. She submits that having served the sentence for the period of 12 years, 4 months, and 16 days, he was released on permanent parole by the District Magistrate, Jaipur vide order dated 26.06.2024 pursuant to the order of the State Government dated 05.06.2024. 7. It is contended that the maximum sentence provided under Section 326A IPC is life imprisonment; however, the minimum sentence provided for the offence above is ten years. It is also contended that there were no circumstances before the trial court that would have warranted a sentence of life imprisonment for the accused. At the time of the incident, the appellant was 21 years old. The trial Court also recorded the findings that PW-2 Kirti sustained grievous injuries and her face was disfigured. However, Dr. Koslesh Sharma, PW-16 who had examined the victim and prepared the medical legal report (Exhibit P-72), has deposed that Kirti sustained two burn injuries, and the final opinion about the nature of the injury can be rendered only after perusing the record. Similarly, the other Dr Pradeep Goil, PW-17, who treated the victim in his examination in chief, has only stated that the victim was subjected to an acid burn and her face and hands were burnt with acid, and she was admitted to the Burn Ward and treated up to 02.10.2014. He has also not expressed that the burn injuries sustained by the injured/victim, PW-2 Kirti, were grievous in nature. It is also argued that the present appellant has no criminal antecedents and that there were no circumstances before the trial court to warrant a sentence of life imprisonment. He has also not expressed that the burn injuries sustained by the injured/victim, PW-2 Kirti, were grievous in nature. It is also argued that the present appellant has no criminal antecedents and that there were no circumstances before the trial court to warrant a sentence of life imprisonment. It is also submitted that the appellant was released on permanent parole vide order dated 26.06.2024, and thereafter the appellant has lived his life without any indulgence in any criminal activities; therefore, the sentence of life imprisonment passed against the appellant may be modified to the extent of the period of sentence already undergone by the appellant. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the grant of any relief to the appellant and submitted that the appellant poured the acid on PW-2 Kirti, resulting in burn injuries to her head, face and other parts of the body. The learned trial Court has also recorded that due to acid burn, PW-2 sustained permanent disfiguration of her face; therefore, while maintaining the conviction and sentence, the appellant's appeal deserves dismissal. 9. Heard and perused the record. 10. There is no conclusion to the fact that PW-2 Kirti sustained grievous burn injuries on her face & other parts of her body. PW- 16 Dr Koslesh Sharma, who examined the victim’s injuries, in his deposition, has stated that whether the burn injuries are grievous or simple would be determined after perusing the entire record. 11. No such record was placed before PW-16, Dr Koslesh Sharma, to obtain his final opinion regarding the two burn injuries sustained by PW-2, Kirti Sharma. 12. The other Dr Pradeep Goil, PW-17, who was Professor in the Plastic Surgery Department, in his deposition, has only stated that the victim remained hospitalised in the burn unit from 02.09.2014 to 02.10.2014, and her face and hands were found burnt with the acid. In his statement, PW-17 has not specified the nature of injuries sustained by the victim. In the Discharge Ticket (Exhibit P-73), it was not opined or written that the injuries suffered by the victim were grievous or that her face was permanently disfigured. 13. In the discharge summary (Exhibit P-80), it is stated that “Hypertrophic scar revised on forehead B/L Temporal Region, Derma Abrasion with Melanocyte Grafting done. Derma Abrasion done with Stem Cells on the left thigh. Melanocytes were taken from the left thigh. Procedure was uneventful.” 14. 13. In the discharge summary (Exhibit P-80), it is stated that “Hypertrophic scar revised on forehead B/L Temporal Region, Derma Abrasion with Melanocyte Grafting done. Derma Abrasion done with Stem Cells on the left thigh. Melanocytes were taken from the left thigh. Procedure was uneventful.” 14. This opinion also does not suggest that the victim’s forehead or other parts of the body were permanently disfigured due to the pouring of the acid. The pictures of the victim were also exhibited as Exhibit P-3 to P-12; however, these pictures also do not suggest that the burn injuries resulted in permanent disfiguration. Further, in the absence of a specific medical opinion, we cannot infer that the burn injuries sustained by the victim were grievous in nature, and her face was permanently disfigured. 15. As far as the question of appellants granting the benefit of sentence already undergone is concerned, it is relevant to refer to the provisions of section 326 A & 326 B, which read as under:- “326A-Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid, etc.- Whoever causes permanent or partial damage or deformity to, or burns or maims or disfigures or disables, any part or parts of the body of a person or causes grievous hurt by throwing acid on or by administering acid to that person, or by using any other means with the intention of causing or with the knowledge that he is likely to cause such injury or hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and with fine: Provided that such fine shall be just and reasonable to meet the medical expenses of the treatment of the victim: Provided further that any fine imposed under this section shall be paid to the victim. 326B-Voluntarily throwing or attempting to throw acid-Whoever throws or attempts to throw acid on any person or attempts to administer acid to any person, or attempts to use any other means, with the intention of causing permanent or partial damage or deformity or burns or maiming or disfigurement or disability or grievous hurt to that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.” 16. Under the provisions of Section 326A of the IPC , the minimum sentence provided is 10 years, which may extend to life imprisonment, along with a fine. Under the provisions of Section 326B of , the minimum sentence provided is 5 years, which may extend to 7 years, and the person shall also be liable to a fine. 17. It is a settled law that one of the criminal law aspects is the imposition of adequate, just, proportionate punishment that commensurate with the nature of the crime and the manner in which the offence is committed. 18. It is also settled law that it is a solemn duty of the Court to strike a proper balance while awarding the sentence. 19. Learned Public Prosecutor concedes that the appellant has already undergone a sentence of 12 years, 4 months, and 16 days and was released on permanent parole on 26.06.2024 in pursuance of the grant of permanent parole by the State Government vide order dated 05.06.2024. The learned Public Prosecutor has also submitted a report stating that, following the grant of permanent parole to the appellant, no other case was registered against the appellant, apart from the present case. 20. Had there been permanent disfiguration or the injuries sustained been grievous, then the sentence of LI would have been justified; however, the facts are not such, and further the penal provision enshrined under 326 A of the IPC gives a discretion to the court to impose either to punish the criminal for a period of minimum 10 years or for Life imprisonment. Furthermore, there were no circumstances presented to the trial court that would have warranted a sentence of life imprisonment for the appellant. 21. Therefore, considering the above facts & more particularly the fact that the appellant has remained in custody for more than a decade and also not indulged in any criminal activity before the present offence or after releasing him on permanent parole in this case, and the injuries sustained to the victim were neither grievous nor resulted in any disfiguration we deem it just and proper to modify the sentence of Life imprisonment passed under 326 A of the IPC as already undergone, by maintaining the conviction and the fine imposed upon. 22. Resultantly, the appeal is partly allowed. 23. 22. Resultantly, the appeal is partly allowed. 23. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the appellant for the offences under Sections 326A & 326B of the IPC , the sentence of life imprisonment passed under Section 326A of the is reduced to the period already undergone. The appellant shall deposit the amount of fine imposed upon him within a period of one month in the trial Court from today. If the appellant fails to deposit the amount of the fine, the trial Court shall pass the appropriate order in accordance with the judgment dated November 28, 2019. 24. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. The record of the trial court is to be sent back forthwith.