DINESH MAHESHWARI.J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) In this appeal, the accused-appellant has called in question the judgment and order dated 05.06.2018 in Criminal Revision Petition No. 2859 of 2004 whereby, the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam upheld the judgment and order dated 23.09.2004 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha in Criminal Appeal No. 253 of 2002 affirming the judgment and order dated 04.12.2002 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Idukki in CC No. 126 of 1999 whereby, the accused-appellant was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC') and was sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year together with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and default stipulation.
(3.) The background aspects, so far relevant for the present purpose, could be noticed, in brief, as follows: 3.1. The prosecution case has been that the accused-appellant and the injured victim Sunil Kumar (PW-1) were neighbors. On 26.11.1997 at about 6 p.m., while the victim PW-1 was passing through Mannathara-Thopramkudy Panchayat Road, the appellant along with his wife (accused No. 2) poured acid on the victim from a ridge on the left side of the road. Allegedly, the appellant and the victim had previous enmity due to which, the appellant poured acid, causing serious injuries over the head, neck, shoulder and other parts of the body of the victim. The accused persons were charge-sheeted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Murikkassery Police Station in Crime No. 94 of 1997 for the offence under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC. The case was tried by the Judicial First Class Magistrate in CC No. 126 of 1999, wherein ten witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. 3.2. PW-1, the injured victim, in his testimony stated that the accused-appellant poured red-coloured liquid upon him from a yellow bucket while he was coming back from Thopramkudy; that the liquid was poured upon him from a height on the left side of the body due to which, his body began to burn, he tore off his shirt and dhoti and screamed; his mother (PW-2) came rushing to him crying; they ran towards a tea shop; and PW-4 and PW-5 took him to hospital where he remained as inpatient for 3 months. In response to the question if he was capable of doing his daily routine by himself during those 3 months, he replied in the negative. The testimony of PW-1 was corroborated by his mother PW-2, who was walking a few strides behind him at the time of the incident. Further, the witnesses PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5 also stated having seen the victim running towards the teashop. 3.3. The treating doctor of the victim, PW-8 stated that the victim was examined by him on 26.11.1997 at about 7.45 p.m. and that acid burns were present on the left side of the body of the victim, involving forehead, scalp and neck, back of chest, left buttock and front of left thigh; that the victim remained an inpatient and was discharged on 18.01.1998. He further stated that there was a chance of disfigurement of the injured area. In cross-examination, the doctor stated that the victim could carry on his daily affairs while under treatment; that there was no disfigurement at the time of drawing the wound certificate (Ex. P/5) as the skin was healing and that scars would develop only later. In defence, the accused examined one witness DW-1 who suggested that on the date of incident, the appellant was working as carpenter in his house until 6 O'clock in the evening. 3.4. After scrutinizing the relevant evidence, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, by his judgment and order dated 04.12.2002, convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 326 IPC and sentenced him as mentioned hereinbefore. However, the accused No. 2, wife of the appellant, was acquitted for absence of evidence against her. 3.5. The appeal preferred by the accused-appellant before the Additional District and Sessions Judge was dismissed by judgment and order dated 23.09.2004 with the observations that the injuries inflicted by using corrosive substance were grievous in nature and it was reasonable to think that the victim was unable to follow his ordinary pursuits during the period of hospitalisation. 3.6. Further, the revision petition preferred by the accused-appellant was dismissed by the High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam after finding no ground to interfere in the concurrent findings of the subordinate Courts. Hence this appeal. ;