CRL.A. 909/20 12 & CRL. REV.P. 446/2013 Page 1 of 22 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: 25 th April 202 5 Pronounced on: 07 th August 202 5 + CRL.A. 909/2012 DEPAK @ DEPU S/o Sh. Umesh Chand Gupta, R/o H. No.76 -A, Gali No.3, Saroj ini Park, Shastri Nagar, Delhi. ...Appellant Through: M r. Harshit Jain, Adv. (DHCLSC), M r. Shubham, M r. Rahul, M r. Sajan, Advs. versus THE STATE Govt. of NCT of Delhi. ...Respondent Through: M r. Utkarsh, AP with SI Arvind Kumar Saini, PS : Geeta Colony . + CRL.REV.P. 446/2013 SHOBHA D/o. Shri Jaiprakash Bajpai R/o H. No.207, G ali No.2, Khureji Khas, Delhi. ...Petitioner Through: Petitioner in person. versus 1. STATE (NCT of Delhi) 2. S.H.O. P.S. - Shakarpur, Delhi. 3. The Com m issioner of Police P.H.Q., I.P. Estate, Delhi Police CRL.A. 909/20 12 & CRL. REV.P. 446/2013 Page 2 of 22 I.T.O., New Delhi . 4. DEPAK @ DEPU S/o Sh. Umesh Chand Gupta, R/o H. No.76 -A, Gali No.3, Sarojini Park, Shastri Nagar, Delhi. ...Respondent Through: M r. Utkarsh, AP with SI Arvind Kumar Saini, PS Geta Colony . M r. Harshit Jain, Adv. (DHCLSC) for R-2 with R -2 i n person. CORAM : HON'BLE M S. JUSTICE NENA BANSAL KRISHNA J U D G M E N T NENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J. 1. This is another unfortunate incident, where a jilted Appellant frustrated by the persistent denial of his overtures and offer to mary t he Victim, led him in his frustration and dejection, to throw acid in the Victim, resulting 15 -VXSHUILFLDODQGGHHSEXUQ 2. Criminal Appeal No. 909/2012 under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( hereinafter referre d to as Cr.P.C. ) has ben prefered by the Appellant, Depak @ Deepu, seking setting aside of the Judgment dated 05.07.2012 and Order o n Sentence dated 10.07.2012 , passed by the Ld. A.S.J., Delhi , wherein the Appellant , Depak @ Depu was convicted under Sections 341/326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as µIPC ¶) and sentenced to five years' Rigorous Im prisonm ent and a fine of Rs. 2,000/ -, in default whereof to undergo two months' Simple Imprisonment . CRL.A. 909/20 12 & CRL. REV.P. 446/2013 Page 3 of 22 3. Criminal Revision Petition beari ng CRL.R.P. 446/2013 under Sections 397 /401 read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has ben filed on behalf of the Petitioner /Victim Smt. Shobha, seking enhancement of the sentence of imprisonment of five years awarded to the Appellant/Respondent No. 4 vide Order dated 10.07.2012. 4. The Case of the Prosecution is that on 26.08.2009 while the victim, PW -2, M s. Shobha, aged about 16 years and was studying in Class Xth, was going towards her School . A t about 07:45 AM , when she reached in front of 16/11, Geta Col ony, the Appellant, Depak along with one Sanjay Bajaj , who w ere known to her alo ng w ith one third a ssociate , were present. On seing them, she got scared and started walking briskly. Then the Appellant, Depak stopped her and threw acid on her forehead fr om a stel glass. The acid trickled to her face and chest caus ing burning sensation and she started crying . The public gathered on the spot and her mother, Smt. M era reached the spot and took her to the hospital. 5. The information was given by PW -4 Pooj a vide DD No. 14A, Polic e Station Geta Colony at about 09:43 AM that someone has thrown acid on her sister and she has been taken to Dr. Hedgewar Hospital . The investigations were taken up by PW -12, SI Suresh Rai, who reached the spot and noticed some liq uid at t wo place s on the road , which had a smell of acid. The Crime Team reached the spot and lifted earth control and also took the photographs of the spot. 6. PW -12 SI Suresh Rai then went to the Hospital and recorded the Statement of PW -4 Pooja , who while narating the entire incident , also stated that the Appellant, Depak had ben stalking her for the last 7 -9 CRL.A. 909/20 12 & CRL. REV.P. 446/2013 Page 4 of 22 months and was insisting to mary her . A bout 6 -7 months prior to the inciden t, he had taken her to the Court by giving enticement and had made her sign atures on some documents. She had declined to mary Depak on acount of which, he threw acid on her face to deface her. 7. FIR No. 212/20 09 dated 26.08.20 09 was lodged against the Appellant, Depak and Sanjay Bajaj. On Completion of investigations , the Charge -Shet under Section 341/326 /506/34 IPC , w as filed against both the acused persons. 8. The Charges under Sectio n 341/326/506/34 IPC were fram ed on 05.07.2012 against the Apellant , Depak and the co -Acused, Sanjay Bajaj. 9. The Prosecution examined 12 witnesses in all. The most important witness is PW -2, M s. Shobha, the Complainant , whose testimony was coroborated by PW -4, Pooja her younger sister , who was an eye witness and was acompanying the victim at the time of acident . 10. The testimony was furthe r supported by PW -5, M s. M era, mother of the victim, who was working as a sweper at Dera Baba Karam Singh Gurudwara School Patparganj Road , Delhi, who coroborated that the Appellant used to stalk his daughter, M s. Shobha and tease her and had been press urizing her to mary him or else. He threatened that if she did not agre to the proposal, he would kill her siblings and would disfigure her face. She further deposed that while they were taking M s. Shobha to the Hospital, her son, PW -6, Anu j made a call at Number 100 and the Police m et them at the hospital. PW-6, Anuj, brother of the victim, PW -2 M s. Shobha also deposed on similar lines. CRL.A. 909/20 12 & CRL. REV.P. 446/2013 Page 5 of 22 11. PW -12, SI Suresh Pal , the Investigating Oficer deposed about the investigation s caried out by him and filing of the Charge -Shet on completion of investigations. 12. The Statement of the Appellant, Depak was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P .C. where he denied all the incriminating evidence and claimed that he had ben falsely implicated. He took a defence that PW -2 M s. Shob ha and her mother PW -5 M era wanted to exploit them and demanded Rs.5,00,000/ - from him. On his refusal, a false Complaint has ben lodged against him. He asserted that he was sleping a t his home at the time of incident. 13. In support of his defence, he exam ined DW -1, M r. Deva , who deposed that the victim was earlier residing in his house as a tenant, which he had got vacated due to her bad conduct. She was in love with him and wanted to mary him, but he refused. Then she shifted to C -4, Gali No. 1, Rashid M arket, Geta Colony, Delhi. On 26.08.2009, he had called Depak but his mobile phone was switched of. He again called him at 9:00 AM when he was informed about the incident and also about the registration of FIR. PW -2, Shobha had demanded Rs.50,000/ - from the Appellant, Deepak, to settle the matter. 14. DW -2, Raj Kumar, a neighbour of Appellant, Depak stated that he came to know about the acid attack from Appellant Depak, who told him that he was not involved in the incident. 15. The Ld. Trial Court, after eval uation of the evidence , acquitted the co -accused, Sanjay Bajaj but Appellant Depak was convicted . It was held that the Prosecution had sucessfully proved that Appellant Depak had CRL.A. 909/20 12 & CRL. REV.P. 446/2013 Page 6 of 22 wrongful ly confined the victim, PW 2 M s. Shobha when she was on her way to School and had caused grievous injury by throwing acid on her face. 16. The Appellant Deepak vide Order dated 05.07.2012 and was acordingly convicted under Section 341 IPC and Section 326 IPC . Vide Order on sentence dated 10.07.2012 , for the ofence punisha ble under Section 326 IPC , he was sentenced to undergo five years RI and a fine of Rs. 2,000/ - in default SI for two months. For the ofence punishable under Section 341 IPC , the Appellant was sentenced to undergo RI for one month and a fine of Rs.500/ -, in default to undergo SI for 15 days. 17. Aggrieved by the conviction and the Sentence, the present Appeal has ben preferred by the Appellant. 18. The ground s of challenge are that the Impugned Judgment is based on conjectures and surmises. The contradictions in t he Statement s of the Prosecution witnesses, have not ben considered in the right earnest . PW -2, M s. Shobha had no where mention ed in her Complaint that P W-4, Pooja , her sister was acompanying her at the time of the incident. It is asserted that PW -4, M s. Pooja has ben introduced as a witness only to falsely implicate the Appellant. 19. It is further submitted that acording to the testimony of PW -4, Pooja she was holding the hand of her sister, PW -2 M s. Shobha at the time of the incident. Had this been the c ase, PW -4 M s. Pooja would have also received injuries, which corroborates that she was never present at the spot. 20. Furthermore, she deposed that the persons who threw the acid, were wearing helmet at the time of the alleged incident, which indicates that sh e did not se the assailants and was not in a position to identify them. It is CRL.A. 909/20 12 & CRL. REV.P. 446/2013 Page 7 of 22 claimed that the Appellant has been falsely implicated at the behest of her family members. 21. Further, PW -5, M era had stated that she had taken the victim, PW -2 M s. Shoba to her house in an Auto and then to the Hospital. However, the statement of Auto driver has not ben recorded by the Investigating Oficer, to coroborate the version of PW -5, M era. 22. PW -2 Shobha has admitted in her statement that her brother, PW -6 Anuj is engag ed in the manufacturing of nail polish in which some chemicals are used and that acid bottles remain present in the bathroom of their house for cleaning the toilet. It was suggested to her that in fact while she was trying to get the bottle of acid from th e bathroom, it fell on her face causing the acid burns. It is claimed that it is not the Appellant, who had thrown the acid on the face of the Prosecutrix. 23. It is asserted that t here are material contradictions in the Statement of PW -2, M s. Shobha and PW -4, M s. Pooja about the cont ainer in which the alleged acid was being caried. Furthermore, PW -2, M s. Shobha and PW -4, M s. Pooja nowhere stated that PW -2 M s. Shobha was first taken to her house and then to the Hospital , as has been deposed by her mo ther, PW -5 M s. M era and brother, PW -6 M r. Anuj. 24. Furthermore , none of the Prosecution witnesses deposed that PW -6 Anuj had made a call at the Number 100. However, it is only PW -5, M other , who has so claimed , which again raises a doubt about the story of the Prosecut ion. 25. The place of incident was a public place and according to the Prosecution , public had gathered at the time of the incident. However, no CRL.A. 909/20 12 & CRL. REV.P. 446/2013 Page 8 of 22 public witness has ben examined. Even the statement of the Shopkeper , who was present near the scene of incident , has not ben recorded. 26. In the end, it is claimed that the testimony of DW -1 Deva , completely proves the defence of the Appellant that he has ben implicated falsely in this case , but his testimony has ben eroneously disc arded by the learned Trial Court. 27. The Prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case and the Appellant is entitled to acquittal. 28. The State in its Status Report , had submitted that as per the M LC, the victim , Shobha had sufered 15 to 18 % superficial dep burn injuries . The testimony of the Prosecution witnesses has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. It is asserted that PW -2 M s. Shobha , was just 16 years old and the act of the Appellant Depak has left her with a trauma and mental agony for the res t of her life. 29. It is thus , sub mitted that the Appellant has ben rightly convicted and sentenced and there is no merit in the present Appeal. CRL. R. P. 446/2013 (Revision Petition on behalf of the Petitioner/Victim seking enhancement of punishment awarded to the Appellant in CRL. A. 909/2009) 30. The victim , Shobha in her Revision Petition under Section 397/401 read with Section 482 Cr.PC, has sought enhancement of the punishment awarded to the Appellant/Respondent No.4 Depak in FIR No. 21/2009 . It is submitted that after the present App eal was prefered before this Court, the sentence was suspended and he was released on Bail vide Order dated 05.10.2012. However, soon after he was enlarged on Bail, on 02.11.2012 CRL.A. 909/20 12 & CRL. REV.P. 446/2013 Page 9 of 22 while victim , 6KREKDZDVJRLQJWRKHUVLVW Kunj, Delhi at about 01:15 PM , the Appellant , Depak had stopped the Rickshaw near Bank Enclave, near DDA M arket, Laxmi Nagar , Delhi and attacked her with a surgical blade resulting in grievous injur ies on her left chek , left wrist and right foot and ther eafter, he ran away from the spot . She was taken to a local Nursing Home by the rickshaw puller from where she called her mother, who then called the PCR at Number 100. She was taken to Lok Na rayan Jaiprakash Hosp ital, New Delhi in the PCR van and was admi tted in the Hospital. She was given treatment and her M LC was prepared. 31. The v ictim /Shobha then made an Application for cancellation of Bail of the Appellant, who was arested and another FIR No. 80 8/2012 dated 02.11.2012 under Section 326/34 1 IPC, was reg istered at Police Station Shakarpur. 32. The victim , M s. Shobha has s ought the enhancement of sentence on the ground that the Appellant , Depak took advantage of liberty granted vide Bail Order dated 05.10.2012 and comitted another ofence whereof grievous i njur ies was caused to her , which reflects his intention , motive and revengeful attitude, which does not warant any s ympathy. His conduct has grossly shocked the conscience of the public. He has displayed actions indicating that he is totally unfit to be b rought back into the mainstream society and is incapable of being re formed. He is a constant threat to her life and liberty and deserves the harshest punishment prescribed under the law. 33. It is further submitted that the Appellant , Depak despite having spe nt two and a half years in jail for the ofence he committed , has not shown any CRL.A. 909/20 12 & CRL. REV.P. 446/2013 Page 10 of 22 remorse and regret. S he was a 16 -year -old school going girl while the Appellant , Depak is 27 years old. The act of the Appellant , Depak has led to disfigurement of parts of a body , simply because she refused to mary him. The fact that the Appellant has committed a fresh crime while he was on Bail , after being convicted in the present FIR , makes him liable for enhance d punishment of life imprisonment. 34. Reliance has ben placed on M anga l Singh vs. Kishan Singh, (200 9) 17 SC 303 wherein the Apex Court observed that ofence of Section 326 may actually be more serious than the ofence under Section 307 IPC. The ofence of acid attack on a young unmaried girl would , though fall un der Section 326 , but it is far more serious than a fire arm shot that misses the victim. 35. Further , reliance has ben placed on Vishwambhar Narayan Jadhav vs. M allap pa Sangramappa M allipalil & Anr. , (2007) 15 SC 600 and Bengai M ondal @ Begai M andal vs. Stat e of Bihar, (2010) 2 SCC 91. 36. A prayer is, therefore, made that the sentence of the Appellant , Depak be enhanced to rigorous imprisonment for life. 37. Appellant , Depak in his response to the Revision Petition , has asserted that the Revision Petition is not maintainable and has ben filed with the sole intent of wasting the time of the Court and to harass and humiliate the Appellant , Depak . She has not approached the Court with clean hands and the Revision Petition is only intended to divert the attention of the Court from the facts. He further claimed that he has ben falsely implicated in FIR No. 808/20 12 with the sole motive of extorting money from him. He was not present at the spot , but was at his work place at CRL.A. 909/20 12 & CRL. REV.P. 446/2013 Page 11 of 22 Gandhi Nagar, Delhi. He had moved an Applic ation under Section 91 Cr.P .C. befor e the learned M etropolitan M agistrate for calling the Location Chart and Call Detail Records of his mobile phone, to prove his alibi , which has ben allowed to the extent that the concerned authorities have ben directed to preserve the requisite data. 38. W ritten Submissions have been filed by him in suport of his case . It is submitted that the present Petition is liable to be dismissed. 39. Status Report has ben filed on behalf of the Revision Petition wherein the entire det ails of the investigations and filing of Charge -Shet in FIR No. 808/ 2012 has ben given and further s tated that the Appellant has ben convicted in this case vide Judgment dated 10.04.2012. 40. It is further detailed that while the Appellant had ben release d on Bail during the Appeal, he had again attacked the victim on 02.11.2012 with a surgical blade for which another FIR No. 808/2012 got registered . The Appellant , Depak has ben convicted in the said FIR vide Judgment dat ed 09.01.2017 and has ben senten ced to seven years imprisonment , which is abo ut to be completed by M arch, 2020. 41. It is further submitted that by way of the present Criminal Revision Petition, the victim has sought enhancement of sentence awarded to the Appellant. Subm issions heard and t he record perused. 42. Attacking a victim with acid out of frustration over refusal to mary is one of the most heinous crimes against women and is a blatant violation of human dignity. Therefore, such cases must be dealt with utmost seriousness and sensitivi ty. Acid attack victims le ave lifelong trauma and unfortunately, CRL.A. 909/20 12 & CRL. REV.P. 446/2013 Page 12 of 22 the victim is forced to live with both the physical pain and emotional scars for the lifetime . 43. The Apex Court in Parivartan Kendra vs Union of India (2016) 3 SC 571 encapsulated the gravity and the plight of the victim and impact of such crime and observed that the likeliness of the victim getting a job which involves physical exertion of energy is very low. The social stigma and the pain that she has to go through for not being acepted b y the society cannot be neglected. Furthermore, the general reaction of loathing which she would have to encounter and the humiliation that she would have to face throughout her life cannot be compensated in terms of money. As a result of the physical inju ry, the victim will not be able to lead a normal life and cannot dream of marriage prospects. Since her skin is fragile due to the acid attack , she would have to take care of it for the rest of her life. Therefore, the aftercare and rehabilitation cost tha t has to be incurred , will have huge financial implications on her and her family. 44. There is no doubt that cases of this nature constitute a direct attack on human rights, particularly the victim's right to life and dignity. The victims of such heinous crim es are burdened with lifelong trauma and sufering. 45. Charges under section 341/326/506/34 IPC were framed against the Appellant , Depak and the co -acused, Sanjay Bajaj on 19.1.2009 , to which they pleaded not guilty. The Charges against the Appellant , Dep ak were of having thrown acid on the face of victim and thereby having caused acid burns resulting in grievous injury punishment under Section 326 IPC. Thereafter, the Prosecut rix , Shobha and her m other w ere examined by the Ld. M etropolitan M agistrate . CRL.A. 909/20 12 & CRL. REV.P. 446/2013 Page 13 of 22 46. Ho wever, in view of the Notification dated 04.08.2010 issued by Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Right s (DCPCR) , that all the procedings which were pending in the Court of Ld. M etropolitan M agistrate, be transfered to the &KLOGUHQ¶V Court , the matt er was committed to the Court of Ld. ASJ ( Notified Children ¶V Court ) vide Order dated 27. 01.2011. 47. The main prosecution witness is PW -2 Shobha, the Complainant , who has narated the entire incident, as it happened with her on 26.08.2009. She explained that she was studying in Class X in Bal Hans PT College, Geta Colony, Delhi (Open School). On that day at about 07:45 AM , she along with her younger sister Pooja , PW -4 was going towards school, when she saw accused Appellant, Depak and Sanjay standing along with one other person. Appellant, Deepak was holding a steel glass in his hand and he came near her and threw acid upon her from that steel glass, which fell on her forehead. Thereafter, all of them fled away on motor bike. She felt the burning of acid on her forehead, neck and left hand. She raised a hue and cry, and people of the locality gathered on the spot. Her younger sister, who saw the incident from a distance, informed their mother, who also reached the spot and she took her to the Hospital. Her statement Ex.PW -2/A was recorded, on which the FIR was registered. 48. She further explained that the Appellant, Depak was known to her for about 06 -07 months prior to the incident as he used to stalk her and was coercing her for mariage. He also used to thr eaten her that he would throw acid upon her. He had also taken her to the Court after enticement and obtained her signatures on some documents. She had ben persistently CRL.A. 909/20 12 & CRL. REV.P. 446/2013 Page 14 of 22 denying the ofer of mariage. On her refusal, Appellant, Depak had also threatened to kill her brothers and sisters. She further narated that the Appellant, Depak threw acid upon her since she refused to mary him. 49. In her cross -examination, she explained that did not have the Certificate for Class IX and was therefore, she was doing he r Class X from Open Schooling. It has further emerged in cross -examination of PW -2, the victim that at the time when those documents were signed by the Victim, Shobha they were printed and not blank. She further explained that they went to Dr. Hedgewar Hos pital in a TSR and there at about at about 08:30 AM . She further clarified that she had not complai ned about the conduct of the Appellant , Depak for chasing and forcing her for mariage, though she voluntered that her mother had tried to make him underst and. She further explained that the Appellant and co -acused were standing at the motorcycle but she wa s not aware of the motorcycle number. On seing her coming, they started moving motorcycle and had thrown acid on her while she was walking on the right side of the road. 50. Her testimony is corroborate d by PW -4 Pooja, her younger sister , who was about 11 years old. She also coroborated that on 26.08.2009 at about 07:30 AM , when along with her sister PW -2 Shobha was going to School, the Appellant Depak th rew something from a plastic glass on the face of her sister, who starting crying loudly, while the Appellant Depak along with other co -acused fled on the motorcycle. Cross -examination was done in detail, wherein she stated that she did not sustain any i njury during WKLVLQFLGHQW¶ CRL.A. 909/20 12 & CRL. REV.P. 446/2013 Page 15 of 22 51. The third material witness was PW -5 M era , mother of the victim, who deposed that she was working as a Sweper at Dera Baba Karam Singh Gurudwara School, Patparganj Road, Delhi and used to leave her house at about 07:30 AM . Her daughter PW 2 Shobha was studying in BaI Hans School, Rashid M arket near their house , in 10th Class. She used to complain to her that the Appellant, Depak used to stop and tease her. The Appellant, Depak was known to her, as he used to visit their stre t and kept standing in front of their house. Appellant, Deepak was acompanied by co -acused Sanjay. She was also informed by her daughter that the Appellant, Deepak used to pressurize her get maried with him or else he would kill her younger brothers and sisters. He also had threatened that in case, she did not agre with his proposal, he would disfigure her face. She further coroborated that at about 07:45 AM , her younger daughter came from the school weping that the Appellant has thrown acid on Shobha . Some persons who had known her, brought PW -2 Shobha to the School and she saw some people putting water on her at the gate of Gurudwara/School. She took her in an Auto and reached her home, where she woke up her son and then they went to the Hospital nea r Karkardooma. The right -side face, neck and other portion of PW -2 6KREKD¶VERG\ZDVIRXQ PW -6 Anuj made a call at No.100 to the Police, who arived in the Hospital and recorded the statement of the Victim. She was extensively cross -examine d, but nothing material could be elicited. 52. The fourth material witness was PW -6 Anuj, brother of the Victim, who also coroborated that the Appellant, Depak used to tease his sister Shobha and was pressurizing her to get maried with him. On 25.08.2009, CRL.A. 909/20 12 & CRL. REV.P. 446/2013 Page 16 of 22 i.e. one day prior to the incident, the Appellant, Depak and the co -accused Sanjay had met him at Shiv Puri, where he had asked them to not stalk or harass his sister. On this, the Appellant, Depak threatened him that he would throw acid on the face of hi s sister and also threatened to kill his brothers and sisters. On 26.08.2009 at about 07:45/08:00 AM , while he was sleeping in the house, his younger sister Bittoo came crying and told him that the Appellant, Depak had thrown acid on PW -2 Shobha. Their mo ther , PW -5 M era also came there and they took PW -2 Shobha to the Hospital. Again, though he was cross -examined extensively, no material contradiction could be elicited. 53. The testimony of PW -2 Shobha is fully corroborated by that of her younger sister Pooj a, PW -4 who was an eyewitness and was with her at the time ocuring of incident. Furthermore, the testimon y of PW -2, 4, 5 and 6 have ben consistent that the Appellant, Depak used to stalk and tease the Victim. They all consistently stated that not only was he exerting her to get maried with him but was also extending threat to kill her younger brothers and sisters and also disfigure her face. It is therefore , proven that because the Appellant, Depak was intending to mary PW -2, Shobha to which she and her family members were not agre able , he persistently stalked and teased and even enticed her to the Court and made her sign some documents. 54. All this prosecution evidence consistently establishes the motive of the Appellant, Depak intending to mary the Victim, Shobha to which she was not agred and thus , he threatened to disfigure her face and kill her brothers and sisters. CRL.A. 909/20 12 & CRL. REV.P. 446/2013 Page 17 of 22 55. The testimony of the prosecution witnesses was sought to be impeached on the ground of there are material contradiction s in the testimony of Prosecution W itnesses. According to the victim, as per her deposition, Appellant, Depak came on a motorcycle and thr ew acid while sitting on the motorcycle and escap ed thereafter. However, the Prosecutrix has explained in her testimony that th ey were standing on the motorcycle and on seing her coming they started moving and threw acid on her face, while she was walking on the right side of the road. She was categorical in stating that they were not wearing helmet. 56. Though, PW -4 Pooja has depos ed that they were wearing helmets, but it has also ben explained that PW -4 Pooja was little far from the Victim , Shobha . W hether, she was able to see them throwing acid or not, the testimony of PW -2 Shobha has ben consistent and she has named the Appella nt, Depak . There is nothing brought on record to discredit the testimony of the Prosecutrix. It may also be mentioned that the Appellant, Depak was known to the Prosecutrix for the last 06 -07 months and he was not a stranger, whom she had sen for the fi rst time. She was categorical in her testimony about acid being thrown by the Appellant, Depak , as he had ben threatening her from the past. The identity of the Appellant, Depak and the incident of throwing acid upon her stand s proven beyond reasonable doubts. 57. The defence counsel had also sought to claim that there were contradiction in the statement of PW -5 M eera, mother of the Victim, Shobha as to how she came to know about happening of the incident. However, her testimony is consistent in stating tha t she was present in the Gurudwara/ CRL.A. 909/20 12 & CRL. REV.P. 446/2013 Page 18 of 22 School and was informed by her younger daughter about the incident with the elder daughter. She saw public persons throwing water on the face of her daughter, just outside her school. She has also stated that she has put her daughter in an Auto and went home and after taking her son, they all went to Hospital. Similar is the testimony of PW -6 Anuj, brother of Victim. There is absolutely no contradiction in this regard. 58. The testimon y of these four witnesses , was fully cor roborated by DD No.14A , Ex.PW -1/A recorded at 09:43 AM , wherein it was recorded that brother of the Victim has given information about acid being thrown on his sister near Rasid M arket, Gurudwara and they were taking her to the Hospital. The DD entry also fully corroborates the testimony of the Prosecution witnesses. 59. The other material document is the M L C (Ex.PW -10/A), which clearly states that the Victim had burns to the extent of 15 -18% due to acid attack. It has also ben proved by PW -10 Dr. Abhishek Bi swas, who examined the Victim when brought to the Hospital and found the burn injuries. 60. PW -3 Dr. Rajesh Kumar, SR Surgery, Dr. Hedgewar Hospital, Karkardooma, who proved the M LC dated 26.08.2009 of the Victim that was prepared by Dr. Vishal K. Gajwaiyya. T he opinion on the M LC is Ex.PW -3/A, acording to which the injuries sufered by the Victim were grievous in nature. 61. The investigations were carried out by PW -12 SI Suresh Pal, who deposed that on receipt of DD No.14A Ex.PW -1/A, he along with HC Pramod Kuma r had reached the spot and had inspected the site and called CRL.A. 909/20 12 & CRL. REV.P. 446/2013 Page 19 of 22 the Crime Team , which took the photographs Ex.PW -8/A1 to A8. He further deposed that there were acid spots and the concrete /earth with acid , were lifted from the spot. They then went to the Hospi tal where he obtained the M LC of the Victim Shobha and also recorded her statement Ex.PW -2/A and got the FIR registered. 62. M uch had argued on behalf of the Appellant, Depak that there was material contradiction in the testimony of PW -2, Shobha who claimed t hat it was a stel glass in which the Appellant, Depak was carying the acid, while PW -4 had asserted it to be a plastic glass. W hether it was a plastic glass of stel glass, is of no consequence considering the consistent testimony of the victim, which s tands fully coroborated by the M LC which mentioned the acid burns on the victim and also from the testimony of PW - 10 Dr. Abhishek Biswas. 63. The Appellant, Depak had tried to give a suggestion that there was acid stored in the house of Victim as her brothe r PW -6 Anuj was working in a nail polish factory and that while removing the acid bottle from a height it had fallen on the Victim , Shobha . First and foremost, there is no evidence whatsoever to prove that acid fell on her acidently at her residence, espe cially in the light of consistent testimony of not only the Victim , Shobha but also her sister, mother and brother. Rather, from this suggestion given to PW -2 Shobha /Victim, it is in fact an admission on the part of the Appellant, Depak that the Victim ha d infact , sufered acid burns. 64. The Appellant had examined defence witness DW -1 Deva S/o. Sh. Ram Singh, landlord in the house of whom the Victim , Shobha and her family , were tenant. Acording to him, he got vacated the premises on CRL.A. 909/20 12 & CRL. REV.P. 446/2013 Page 20 of 22 acount of activities of PW -2 Shobha, who used to tell him that she love d him and wanted to mary him. Victim , Shobha and her family then shifted to Rashid M arket, Geta Colony. He, on the date of incident, i.e. 26.08.2009, had made a call to the Appellant, Depak , but his phone was switched of. He further deposed that thereafter, at around 10:00 AM when he made a call to the Appellant, Deepak , he told him about the incident of acid attack on PW -2 Shobha. He also deposed that after the FIR was registered, PW -2 Shobha made a deman d of Rs.50,000/ - from Appellant, Depak to settle the dispute. His testimony in fact coroborates about the incident of throwing of acid on Victim. Nothing more has emerged from his testimony. 65. DW -2 Raj Kumar has also deposed that he came to know about the incident of throwing acid on Shobha by the Appellant, Depak . He further stated that the Appellant had told him that he was not involved in the incident as he was sleping in his house . However, his statement is essentially based on hearsay and does not he lp him in any manner. He also claimed that the Appellant, Depak had told him that she was demanding money to withdraw the case, but again, this suggestion also does not prove any defence of the Appellant, Depak . 66.