M.A. Krishnaiah vs State of Karnataka

V.G. Sabhahit, J.—This appeal is filed by the accused in Sessions Case No. 18/2000 on the file of the Fast Track Court - II, Chikmagalur, being aggrieved by the order dated 27.02.2007, wherein the learned Fast Track Judge has convicted the accused of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 307 of IPC, and after hearing the appellant herein, has sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable u/s 354 of the Indian Penal Code and has further sentenced the accused - appellant herein to undergo imprisonment for life i.e., till his death as held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for 10 years for the offence punishable u/s 307 of the IPC. It is further ordered that out of the fine amount of Rs. 2,10,000/-, Rs. 2,00,000/- shall be paid to the victim (PW.1) as compensation.

The essential facts of the case leading up to this appeal with reference to the rank of the parties before the trial Court are as follows:

The appellant herein was working as Head Master in Government Higher Primary School at Magadi, Chikmagalur, during 1999. PW.1 - Vasanthakumari (complainant) was working as Teacher in the said school. PW.2 - Swarnagowri and PW.3 - Vasanthakumari are working as Teachers in the said school. On 02.03.1999 at about 5:30 p.m., PW.1 - D. Vasanthakumari filed complaint before PW.8 - Palakshappa, who was working as Head Constable in Police Station, Chikmagalur. It is averred in the complaint that the complainant (PW.3) was working as Teacher in Government Higher Primary School, Magadi since two years. The accused was working Head Master in the said School. The accused was abusing the complainant regarding conducting of classes by her and the question papers prepared by her. On 23.02.1999 at about 3:45 p.m., while she was in the office room and was preparing to go to the class room for taking classes, the accused came there and asked her as to why she was there in the office room and abused her and threw acid on her. She sustained injury to her right shoulder and on hearing her cry, PW.2 - Swarnagowri and PW.3 -Vasantha Kumari, who were working as Teachers came there and at that time, the accused threatened her saying that she had survived on the said day and if she were to disclose about the said incident, he would kill her. PWs.2 and 3 took her to Joldal Nursing Home at Chikmagalur for treatment. Since she had sustained injury, she could not talk or write and therefore, there is delay in filing the complaint. The above said complaint was registered in Crime No. 56/1999 in Rural Police Station, Chikmagalur. PW.8 - Palakshappa prepared the FIR and submitted the same to the Court. On 03.03.1999, he conducted the spot panchanama as shown by the complainant in the presence of PWs.4 and 5. The Complainant showed the bottle which was kept on the cupboard as the one which was used for the commission of offence and he seized the same as per Ex. P2 and he has identified his signature as Ex.P2(c). He has identified M.O. No. 1 as the bottle, which was seized under the mahazar -Ex.P2.

2.1 PW.8 - Palakshappa handed over further investigation to T. Nagesh Shetty, P.S.I., who has been examined as PW.9. PW.9 took over further investigation from PW.8. On 14.03.1999, the complainant (PW.1) appeared before him and gave further statement as per Ex.P6 alleging that on 02.03.1999 at about 5:30 p.m., she had filed the complaint regarding the incident that took place on 23.02.1999 at 3:45 p.m. and about the accused abusing her and throwing acid on her and causing her burn injuries. In the complaint filed as per Ex.P6, PW.1 has further alleged that: the accused, who was working as Head Master in the School called her to his chamber and asked her to sit by his side and told her that he loves her. When the complainant protested, the accused pulled the hands of the complainant and the complainant slapped on the cheek of the accused. Then the accused threatened the complainant stating that he would kill her and brought the acid bottle from the cupboard and threw acid on her with the intention of kilting her and as a result, the complainant sustained injury en her body and face. Further, the complainant was threatened by the accused that if she were to reveal about the incident to anybody, she would be killed and he would tell that she was having illicit relationship with him. Therefore, in the said circumstances, she did not reveal the incident before anybody. On the basis of the said complaint, PW.9 - T. Nagesh Shetty included the offences punishable under Sections 307 read with 354 of the IPC and prepared the FIR and sought permission to Include the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 307 of the IPC as per Ex.P6. On 14.03.1999 at about 7:15 p.m, the complainant produced saree, bra and blouse and he seized them under panchanama as per M.O. Nos. 2 to 4 under mahazar Ex.P3 In the presence of PWs.5 and 7. He went to the place of the incident on 16.03.1999 and seized the pillow and a broom stick, which were shown by the complainant. They were also burnt here and there. He seized them by conducting panchanama as per Ex.P4 in the presence of panchayatdars, PWs.2 and 4. He has signed the panchanama as per Ex.P4(d). He has recorded the statements of PW.2 - Swarnagowri, Vasanthakumari (PW.3) and Manjunathagowda (PW.4). He received injury certificate on 28.04.1999 as per Ex.P5 from Joldal Nursing Home. He sent the articles for chemical examination. He received the report on 24.09.1998 as per Ex.P7. He received back the articles sent for chemical examination. On completion of the investigation, he has filed the charge-sheet against the accused of having committed the offences punishable u/s 354 and 307 of the IPC.

2.2 Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7(a) and also got marked M.O. Nos. 1 to 6. On behalf of the accused, the statement of the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C, was recorded. The defence of the accused is one of denial and it is the case of the accused that when the complainant went near the cupboard, the acid bottle accidentally fell on her and she has sustained injury. On behalf of the accused, Dws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.D1 to D23 were got marked.

2.3 The Trial Court, by judgement dated 27.02.2007, held that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused used criminal force intending to outrage the modesty of the complainant (PW.1) and has further proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused, with an intention of causing the death of the complainant, threw acid on her and caused her burn injury and if the injuries had caused the death of the complainant, the accused would have been guilty of the offence of murder and thereby, he has committed the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 307 IPC. Accordingly, the learned trial Judge has held that the accused is guilty of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 307 of the IPC and after hearing the learned Counsel for the accused, sentenced the accused as referred to above. That being aggrieved by the said judgement of conviction and sentence passed by the Fast Track Court - II, Chikmagalur, in Sessions Case No. 18/2000 dated 27.02.2007, the accused has preferred this appeal.

We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned State Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent - State.

Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has taken us through the evidence of PWs.1 to 9 and DWs.1 to 4 ad the contents of the documents Exs.P1 to P7 (a) and Exs.D1 to D23 and submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the appellant - accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 307 of IPC, and ultimately; no sentence could be imposed upon the appellant and the judgement of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court impugned in the appeal is liable to be set aside and the appellant is entitled to be acquitted of the offences, for which he is charged. Learned Counsel further submitted that according to the prosecution, the incident occurred on 23.02.1999 at about 3:45 p.m. and when the complainant was taken to the hospital on the said day, she has herself given the history, regarding the injury sustained by her before the Medical officer - PW.5 as burn sustained by accidental fall of the bottle containing acid and no complaint was filed against the appellant. The complainant, only as an afterthought and after discussion with her family members, has foisted a false complaint against the appellant and the said complaint was filed before PW.8 - Palakshappa only on 02.03.1999. However, the complainant has given her further statement on 14.03.1999 before PW.9 - T. Nagesh Shetty. Evidence of PW.5 - Dr. J.P. Krishnegowda would clearly show that at the earliest point of time when the complainant was admitted to the hospital, complainant (PW.1) has given the history of injury as burn injury due to fall of acid bottle from the cupboard and she was herself responsible for the same and she should be given treatment. The said witness (PW.5) has not been treated as hostile. Learned Counsel further submitted that the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 4 is also not helpful in proving the case of the prosecution. Learned Counsel has taken us through the contents of Exs.D5, D6, D22 and D23, the statements given by the complainant and the witnesses before the Enquiry Officer arid further submitted that the evidence of DWs.1 to 4 and the documents marked by them would clearly show that even before the Enquiry Officer, the complainant - PW.1 has stated that she has sustained burn injury due to fall of acid bottle from the cupboard. The report of the DDPI., and the evidence of DWs.1 and 4 would clearly show that the complainant at the earliest point of time, has stated before them that she sustained injury due to fall of acid bottle from the cupboard and no incriminating material was found against the appellant -accused at the earliest point of time and therefore, a false complaint has been foisted against him. Learned Counsel further submitted that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record in the proper perspective and the above said material on record would clearly show that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the Quilt of the appellant of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 307 IPC. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to be acquitted and accordingly, the judgement of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court impugned in this appeal may be set aside and the appellant may be acquitted of the charge of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 307 IPC. Learned Counsel further submitted that even If this Court holds that the prosecution has proved that the appellant - accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 307 of IPC, the sentence imposed upon the appellant by the trial Court is disproportionate to the proved charges against him and the appellant is in custody since the date of the judgement i.e., 27.02.2007 and wherefore, sentence imposed upon him may be reduced.

Learned State Public Prosecutor submitted that PW.1 - Complainant has clearly corroborated the averments made in the complaint and the further statement given by her and she has also explained as to why she did not reveal the incident of the appellant -accused abusing her and throwing acid on her as she was threatened by the accused that he would kill her and that she should not reveal the incident before any body. The evidence of the complainant is clearly corroborated by the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 and the evidence of PW.5 - Medical Officer is not truthful and reliable. History of injury must have been given by the accused himself as the complainant was not in a position to give any statement at that time. Having regard to the evidence of PWs.1 to 9 and Exs.P1 to P7(a) and M.Os. 1 to 6, the trial Court, after appreciating the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the appellant - accused, has rightly held that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant - accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 307 of IPC. Learned State Public Prosecutor further submitted that having regard to the fact that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant has committed the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 307 of IPC and having regard to the fact that the appellant, being the Head Master of the school had misused his position and caused injury to the complainant by throwing acid with the intention of killing her, under the circumstances, the trial court has rightly held that the appellant has attempted to cause murder of the complainant. Therefore, the sentenced imposed upon the appellant by the trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 307 IPC, is justified and the same does not call for interference in this appeal.

Having regard to the above said pleadings, the points that arise for determination in this appeal are:

Whether the finding of the trial Court that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused - appellant herein has committed the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 307 of IPC, is justified or calls for interference in this appeal?

Whether the sentence imposed upon the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 307 of IPC, is justified or calls for interference in this appeal?

We answer the above points for determination as follows:

Point No. 1: The finding of the trial Court that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant herein - accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 307 of IPC is justified and the same does not call for interference in this appeal.

Point No. 2: The sentence imposed by the trial Court against the appellant - accused is liable to be modified as per the final order for the following:

Reasons

Point No. 1: We have considered the contentions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties with reference to the material on record and scrutinized the oral and documentary evidence adduced before the trial Court.

PW.1. - D. Vasanthakumari is the complainant in this case. PW.2 - Swarnagowri and PW.3 Vasanthakumari were working as Teachers in the same School, wherein the appellant - accused and the complainant - PW.1 were working and they have gone to the spot of the incident i.e., the chamber of the appellant - accused, who was working as Head Master of the School immediately on hearing the cry of the complainant (PW.1). PW.4 - Manjunathagowda had come to the School on the date of the incident along with one Mariyappa, whose grand son was not permitted to attend the school on the ground that he did not attend the school regularly and he has also gone to the spot immediately on hearing the cry of the complainant - PW.1 and he is also a witness to the mahazars - Exs.P2 and P4, wherein M.O. No. 1 and M.O. Nos. 5 and 6 respectively were seized. PW.5 - Dr. J.P. Krishnegowda is the Medical Officer, who treated the complainant and issued the wound certificate as per Ex.P5. PW.6 is a witness to the mahazar - Ex.P3. But, he has not supported the case of the prosecution. However, in the cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, he has stated that he has signed the panchanama - Ex.P3 after reading its contents, which according to him, were true. He has identified M.O. Nos. 2, 3 and 4. PW.7 - Lokeshraj Urs is a witness to the mahazar under Ex.P3 under which, M.O. Nos. 2 to 4 were seized. PW.8 - Palakshappa and PW.9 - T. Nagesh Shetty are the investigation officers Their evidence is already referred to while narrating the facts of the case.

DW.1 - Nagaraj was working as Education Officer in D.D.P.I., office, Chikmagalur and he has accompanied the DDPI., to Joldal Nursing Home on 26.02.1999. DW.2 - H.N. Gangadhar was working as Head Master in Kabbigere Higher Primary School and he has spoken to about his visit to the Magadi Higher Primary School as custodian of examination on 16.03.1999. DW.3 - M.S. Nirvanasiddappa is a resident of Magadi and he was President of betterment committee of the School at Magadi. DW.4 - Basavagowda was working as Block Development Officer In Chikmagalur during 1999 and he has conducted enquiry.

It is clear on scrutiny of the evidence of the above said witnesses as also the contents of the documents got marked as per Exs.P1 to P7 (a) arid Exs.D1 to D23, that the fact that on 23.02.1999 at about 3:45 p.m., the complainant - PW.1 sustained injury by fall of acid on right side of her face, right shoulder, right arm and right side of her chest and immediately on hearing her cry, PWs.2, 3 and 4 went there and the appellant - accused was present in his chamber at the time when the complainant sustained burn injury due to fall of acid, is not disputed. It Js also not disputed that there were acid marks on M.O. Nos. 2, 3 and 4, which the complainant was wearing at the time of the incident and also M.O. Nos. 5 and 6 - pillow and broom stick, which were lying by the side of the table of the appellant - accused. According to the prosecution, the said injuries were sustained by the complainant due to the appellant throwing acid on her after abusing her and trying to outrage her modesty and according to the appellant - accused, there was an accidental fall of the acid from the bottle when the complainant went near the cupboard, wherein acid bottle had been kept. It is well settled that it is always for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt its case against the accused and burden of proof required to be discharged by the accused for proving the defence is not one beyond reasonable doubt, but, preponderance of probability. Therefore, it is necessary to appreciate the evidence of the above said witnesses in the light of the documents got marked through them to find out as to whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that it was the accused who abused the complainant and outraged her modesty and tried to cause her murder by throwing acid on her and caused her burn injuries or as to whether the accused - appellant has been successful in substantiating his defence that the injuries that were sustained by the complainant was due to accidental fall of acid from the bottle while the complainant went near the cupboard.

The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the appellant - accused is relying mainly upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 and 8 and 9 and the documents - Exs.P1 to P7(a).

PW.1 - D. Vasanthakumari, the complainant has deposed in her examination-in-chief before the trial court on 09.10.2006 that she knows the accused and she was working as Teacher in Government Higher Primary School from 04.02.1997 at Magadi. That was her first appointment. The accused was the Head Master of the School. As she had been newly appointed, he used to call her to attend all the office work saying that she should learn that and she used to attend the said work. She used to take dictation by sitting on the right side of his table in his office. Up to one year, accused did not trouble her, but, after one year, he started giving her trouble. PW.1 has further deposed that the accused started to look at her in a sexual manner and he used to tell her that he was loving her very much and that she too should love him and by saying so, he used to give her torture. Due to such torture, it was painful for her as she was a married woman having a child. She used to tell the accused that he was too elder person in age and he should not behave like that. But, the accused used to tell the complainant that he would write a report to the superiors against her so as to affect her service. So, she was under full fear. The accused used to insist for sexual things and in view of refusal of the complainant, he used to make a visit to the class room and used to issue memos to her to the effect that she was not teaching well and that she should give reply to the same. Even for the replies submitted by the complainant, the accused used to object saying that she should write as per his dictation admitting faults on her part unnecessarily. Again by showing such writings, he used to black mail her to heed to his request and threatened her that he would report the matter to the superiors. The accused used to touch her legs while taking dictation and if she took back her legs, he used to be angry. Learned Fast Track Judge has recorded demeanor of the witness white deposing the said fact as the witness started weeping at that time: "(while stating so, the demeanor of the witness is noted and she is weeping)". She told all those things to her husband and they decided to get transfer from that place and her husband approached B.E.O., for transfer, but, he told them that since PW.1 had not completed two years, no such transfer could be given to her. The accused told the complainant that he would send the report with remark ''C'' if she would not heed to his request. Even for that, she did not submit herself to his request;

12.1 PW.1 has further deposed as follows:

On 23.02.1999 accused called me in connection with the problem between Nirmala and Harish, students. It was at 2-30 p.m. At that time, he called all the staff and told them that they are unnecessarily walking around the office and unless he calls for, nobody should come there. So, they went back. When I also tried to go back, he did insist me to be there. So, I sat in the office. Again he insisted for the sexual intercourse. I opposed for the same. He caught hold of my hand i.e., left hand he caught hold of my hand once again and dragged it. So, I slapped on his cheek. I was frightened as I slapped the H.M. I sat on the chair by weeping. He shouted me, how dare enough to assault him, but, I was not in a position to hear what he says as I was in frightened mood. He took out the acid from the almirah which was kept in the said office and poured on me saying that he will not leave me as I have assaulted him. He poured the acid on the right side of my face, shoulder and right hand. At the time of saying so, witness has shown all the marks on her person to the Court. I suffered burning of the acid. I tried to shout. But, he closed my mouth and told me that I should say that the said acid fell on me at the time of opening the said Beeru and if I say the truth, he will say to all saying that I am having illicit connection with him and he will see that I will be kicked out of my house. When I was struggling due to burning sensation on the ground as I was rolling on the ground. At that time, another teacher by name Swarnagowri came there and saw the same and enquired about what had happened. I was not in a position to tell anything to her as I was suffering from burning sensation. At that time, accused told her that at the time of opening the door, acid bottle fell on me. Another teacher by name Vasanthakumari also came to the spot and tried to pour water on me. Accused told not to pour water but to bring cow-dung water. Accused tried to give me the same for drinking. But, I did not drink, the same. Teachers told that we do not know first aid let us take her to the Hospital to the Government Hospital at Belur Bus Stop at Chikmagalur. But, accused told them not to take me to there, but to take me to Joldal Nursing Home at Chikmagalur. I was bi ought in a Van from the office to Belur Bus stop and thereafter, I was taken to Joldal Nursing Home in an auto. Swarnagowri and Vasanthakumari took me to the said hospital and by the time we reached Joldal Nursing Home, accused was there. Before, I went there, he told the doctor saying that acid bottle fell from the Beeru. So, the doctor started giving treatment. I have not told anything to the Doctor.

12.2 PW.1 has further deposed that the accused informed her husband through phone and her husband came there and enquired as to what had happened. But, the accused did not allow her to tell the truth to them and he used to be there in her presence always to see that she would not tell the truth. Accused tried to bring the tablets saying that he was her colleague, but, her husband quarrelled with the accused as to why he was trying to do so when he was there to do alt those things. One Manjunathagowda (PW.4) of Magadi came to the hospital and told everybody that there was no drop pf acid in front of the Beeru, but, there was stain of acid on the table and table cloth was burnt at the place where PW.1 had sat on the chair. PW.1 has further deposed that PW.4 Informed the said fact to all those who were present there and So, her husband insisted to tell the truth, but, as there was no scope for her to tell the truth, her husband got her discharged from the Hospital on 26th and in house, her family members insisted her to tell the truth. So, she disclosed the truth before them in his house. She gave the complaint on 02.03.1999 in her own hand-writing as per Ex.P1, which bears her signature as per Ex.P1 (a). Thereafter, she accompanied the Police to the spot and showed the acid bottle, which was on the cupboard and the same was seized under Ex.P2, which bears her signature as per Ex.P2(a). She has identified the acid bottle as M.O. No. 1 and has stated that it is the same bottle, which contained acid and was used by the accused on that day for causing her injury by throwing acid. PW.1 has further deposed that the clothes which she was wearing i.e., purple colour saree, black blouse and bra were also burnt and she has identified M.O. Nos. 2 to 4 and has stated that they were seized under the panchanama -Ex.P3. She has also identified M.O, Mos.5 and 6 as the pillow and the broom stick, which were also burnt due to fall of the acid and which were seized under Ex.P4 and has identified her signature as per Ex.P4(a). She has further deposed that she took treatment in Dharmasthala Ayurvedic Hospital at Hassan for about 8 days. But, it was not fruitful. So, he took treatment in Garden City Hospital at Bangalore. They engrafted by cutting skin from the thigh. But even then, it was not fully cured. There was growth in the skin and swelling. So, he used to take injections at Seetha Clinic, Chikmagalur and she has spent about Rs. 60,000/- to Rs. 70,000/- towards treatment. She has not received any compensation in that regard.

12.3 It is elicited in the cross-examination of the complainant (PW.1) that at the time of the incident, in addition to the accused, herself and six other ladies were serving in the School. It is true that in the room of Head Master, there was table and chairs for the staff. Their school was having betterment committee and the President was regularly attending the School and two members along with him were also attending the meeting. It is true that the said meeting was being held in the said room of the Head Master, it is not true to suggest that from 24.02.1999 up to 26.02.1999, her husband was there along with her in Joldal Nursing Home to look after her. Her mother-in-law was there along with her in the said nursing Home at that time. Her father-in-law and her husband used to come and go, once in a day. Her husband got her discharged from the said nursing home on 26.02.1999 by making payment. It is further elicited that it is true that rural police station was at a distance of 2 furlongs from Joldal Nursing Home. When she was in the said Hospital, she did not disclose as to how acid had fallen on her to her husband or mother-in-law. She has volunteered to state that the accused did not allow her to tell the same to them. It is not true to suggest that she was deposing falsely as accused did not permit her to tell the truth to them. It is further elicited in the cross-examination of the complainant that the complaint was written in the house of Kanakaraj, who was residing at Vijayapura. Due to injuries, she was not in a position to wear saree and wherefore, she did not go to her house at that time. It is not true to suggest that the said acid Injuries sustained by her are due to her own negligence and that she had sustained simple injuries. It is also elicited that on 03.03.1999. when the Police came to the spot, the said acid bottle was on the top of the cupboard and the said cupboard was by the side of the door of the office room. It is true that she was teaching science to 5th, 6th and 7th standards. Two keys were there to the lock of the cupboard i.e., one was with the Head Master and another key was with her and on 03.03.1999, she opened the said cupboard. She has denied the suggestion that there was no key of the cupboard with the Head Master. It is further elicited that Sulphuric acid was the acid, which was contained in the said bottle - M.O. No. 1. It is not true to suggest that the bottle - M.O. No. 1 was not the bottle which was seized on that day. She knows the difference between Sulphuric Acid and Formic acid. It is true that Formic acid is organic acid and Sulphuric acid is inorganic acid. It is not true to suggest that the add, which was seized on the said day was Formic acid and the Police might have written in the panchanama as Formic Acid in Ex.P2. It is not true to suggest that the acid bottle was inside the cupboard and it had accidentally fallen on her body. Witness has volunteered that the said acid bottle was kept at the base level of the cupboard and she had never kept the acid bottle at a height in the cupboard. It is elicited that it is not true to suggest that the cap of the acid bottle was cracked and it was damaged and it was loose due to fall. She has identified M.O. No. 1 and has stated that the acid in it was more than half. There is no label on M.O. No. 1. She did not agree with the suggestion that there was only half acid in the acid bottle, which was seized on that day. The fact that it is mentioned in the panchanama that there was half acid in the acid bottle is not true. On 03.03.1999, except M.O. No. 1, Police did not seize the remaining articles. She has shown the place where she was sitting at the time when she sustained Injuries, to the Police. But, she did not ask about the pillow and the broom stick. She did not tell them. It is not true to suggest that there, was fall of acid on the pillow and broom stick and herself and Police by colluding, have cooked up the said material for the purpose of the case. It is true that the cap of M.O. No. 1 is tight. She did not disclose how she sustained injuries to her family members I.e., her husband, her father-in-law and mother-in-law and brother-in-law - Kanakaraj, when they forced her to tell the truth. Her husband is a School teacher. They discussed about the matter as to whether they should give the complaint or not as it was a question of prestige of a woman. It is not true to suggest that there was no question of prestige of either herself or her family. In answer to the question as to why she did not file complaint on 23.02.1999 itself, she has deposed that it is to protect her respect and chastity, she did not give complaint on 23.02.1999 itself and the accused gave a threat to her and while stating so, the witness was weeping, which fact was recorded in the deposition of the witness by the trial Court. It is further elicited that it is not true to suggest that just to gain sympathy of the Court, she was weeping and the witness has volunteered that "I do not want any sympathy of the Court, but, I want justice." It is true that at the time of the incident, she was already married and having a child. It is not true to suggest she was not an attractive lady so as to attract the accused to give sexual harassment. It is true that at that time, there were two ladies by name Sukanya and Kavitha, who were not married. But, she did not know as to whether they were attractive ladies as suggested by the Counsel for the accused.

12.4 It is further elicited in the cross-examination of PW.1 that when she gave further statement, her husband was present along with her in the Police Station. After panchanama till 14.03.1999, Police did not take her further statement. On 16.03.1999, she had been to Magadi school and on that day, they conducted panchanama, but, they did not record her further statement. She gave the complaint as per Ex.D20 about the sexual harassment she has not written in the complaint at Ex. P1 as it was hot necessary. It is not true to suggest that she has not orally complained about it. It is not true to suggest that with a view to see that the accused is suspended from the Head Master post she has been deposing falsely that he was also sexually harassing her. It is not true to suggest that on 23.02.1999, the accused did not call her to write a report to B.E.O., about T.C. of two students. On that day, writing was not made about that. She admitted the location of the door and windows of the Head Master room as seen in Ex.D21. She has orally complained about the harassment given by the accused to the higher authorities. But, she has not used the word "sexual harassment" while complaining so. It is not true to suggest that she has not orally complained about it. It is not true to suggest that she is not a lady who feared about the Head Master or School authorities. On 24.02.1999, she gave application for grant of 10 days E.L. in her own handwriting. She gave the said application to her husband, but, she does not know to whom she gave the same. She does not know if the accused recommended for grant of leave to the B.E.O. It is true that B.E.O., sanctioned it. It is true that the accused gave complaint against the complainant and five others stating they had assaulted him and the same is pending. It is further elicited that it is true that Chandrashekar did give them show cause notice as per Ex.D13. Acid bottle was in Science cupboard. It is not true to suggest that as the accused complained against the President of the Association - Abdul Majeed and Jayanand, they had instigated the complainant to file a false complaint against the accused. It is not true to suggest that for the said reason, she gave the complaint after a lapse of 8 days. After the said case, her probation was declared. School Inspector, B.E.O., and DDPI., came to Joldal Nursing Home and made enquiry with her, but, she told them just to transfer her from the School and nothing else. It is not true to suggest that she did not ask them to transfer her from the School. It is further elicited that it is true that as on the date of her cross-examination, she was working in Magadi School.

PW.2 - Swarnagowri has deposed in her examination-in-chief that PW.1 was her colleague. She was working as Assistant Teacher from 1998 to 2000 at Magadi School. In the year 1999, the accused was the Head Master of the said school. D. Vasanthakumari (PW.1) was also working as a Teacher in the said school at that time. On 23.02.1999, the accused retained PW.1 in his office in connection with writing of T.C. of the students - Harish and Nirmala to the B.E.O. She went back to her class. Her class room was by the side of the office of the Head Master. At about 3:45 p.m., she heard about the shouting from the office of the Head Master. So, she went to the spot. PW.1 was lying by the side of the chair, which was there by the side of the table of the Head Master saying about the burning sensation as "Uri Uri". At that time, the accused and PW.1 were the only persons present in the said room. She asked PW.1 as to what had happened. But, PW.1 was not in a position to speak. Accused told her that the acid bottle fell on PW.1 from the cupboard. Accused asked her to supply cow dung water to PW.1 for drinking. So, she sent the children to get cow dung water and made PW.1 to drink the same, but, she did not drink it. PW.2 has further deposed that at that time, face of PW.1, her shoulder and right part of the chest were burning with foam and her saree, blouse and bra were also burning. The chair and the ground were stained with the acid. She tried to take her to the hospital. Another Physical Training teacher Vasanthakumari (PW.3) also came to the spot. They sent the children to bring the vehicle. On asking the accused to take her to the Government Hospital, the accused insisted to take her to Private Hospital i.e., Joldal Nursing Home, Chikamagalur. Accused got PW.1 admitted to the said hospital and informed the same to her husband and they went to their houses. PW.2 has further deposed that PW.1 was not in a position to speak and the accused did not allow her to speak with PW.1. On 26.02.1999, the accused asked her and another Vasanthakumari (PW.3) to come to the office and he asked them to take papers and to write to the effect that the add bottle fell from the cupboard. The accused threatened them to write in the said manner. So, they wrote in that manner due to fear. On 16.03.1999, PW.1 told before her and PW.3 that the accused was abusing her sexually and was insisting to give him and there was galata in that regard and she (PW.1) slapped on the cheek of the accused and the accused threatened her with her life in the event of disclosing the said matter. PW.1 also told her and PW.3 that the accused had poured acid on her, Police recorded her statement as also the statement of PW.3 and seized the pillow and the broom stick under panchanama - EX.P4 as per M.O. Nos. 5 and 6, which have been identified by the witness (PW.2). Accused was suspended and as Head Mistress in-charge of the School, she had signed the panchanama and she has identified her signature as per Ex.P4(b).

13.1 It is elicited in the cross-examination of PW.2 that as per the instructions, she has given statement as per Ex.D5. It is true that she has given statement as per Ex.D16. She has not filed any written complaint against the accused to higher authorities to the effect that Exs.D5 and D6 were taken by force. Her husband is retired Deputy Tahsildar. It is further elicited that she is the senior most teacher in the School. It is not true to suggest that due to retransfer as the accused was the Head Master of the School, she was jealous about him. It is true that criminal case as per Ex.D2 is pending against them till the date of her deposition. She does not remember as to whether the accused was on duty in the School on 02.03.1999. It is not true to suggest that she was in-charge head mistress and witness has again stated "she does not remember". She does not remember if the accused was absent and did not attend the School from 03.03.1999 and Ranganayakamma was in-charge Head Master, On 08.03.1999, she took charge from Ranganayakamma as Head Mistress as per Ex.D18(a). It is not true to suggest that she was present in the office room when acid accidentally fell on PW.1. It is not true to suggest that she has given her statement before the B.E.O., accordingly. Witness has volunteered that due to force of the accused, they have given such statement. It Is not true to suggest that the accused did not force them to give such statement. Police did not enquire about the incident either on 02.03.1999 or 03.03.1999. It is not true to suggest that she became Head Mistress and she has secreted time table and notes of lessons. It is not true to suggest that she has secreted them with a view to suppress the truth. It is true on 27.02.1999, B.E.O., A.E.O., Kreedadhikari and Inspector came to the School. She is a resident of Vijayapura. At that time, PW.3 was residing near Anjaneya Temple at Vijayapura. Kanakaraj, brother-in-law of PAV.1 was also resident of Vijayapura at that time. It is not true to suggest that herself and PW.3 did not insist to take the victim to the Government Hospital. The accused objected for taking the victim to the Government Hospital. It is not true to suggest PW.2, PW.3 and Kanakaraj were the residents of Vijayapura. They voluntarily admitted PW.1 to Joldal Nursing Home. Before 16.03.1999, Police did not make enquiry about the case with her. It is not true to suggest that the Teachers Association instigated her to give false statement against the accused and they told her that in the event of suspension of the accused, she would become Head Mistress.

PW.3 - Vasanthakumari was working as Physical Instructor in Magadi School. She knows PWs.1 and 2. They were her colleagues. She knows the accused and he was the Head Master of the said school. She has deposed that on 23.02.1999, after meals in between 1 p.m. to 1-45 p.m., the Head Master called all the staff and warned them not to walk near his office unless he calls anybody. Then they went back to their respective classes. Accused retained PW.1 in his office in respect of writing T.G. to B.E.O. So, she was there in the office and at 3:45 p.m. they heard shouting of PW.1. PW.1 was crying as "Amma, Uri. Uri". By that time, she came out of the class. PW.2 went to the office. She also went to the office and saw PW.1 struggling by the side of the table of the Head Master on the ground. Her body and clothes were burning. Accused told them that the acid bottle fell down on PW.1. But, it was not so. PW.1 was not in a position to tell anything though they enquired about the Incident. Accused asked PW.2 to give cow dung water to PW.1. PW.2 tried to make PW.1 to drink the said water. But, PW.1 refused. They did ask to stop the Van and accordingly, they shifted PW.1 in the Van up to Belur Bus Stop. They tried to admit PW.1 to Government Hospital, but, the accused stopped them from admitting her to the said Government Hospital and told them that she should be taken to Private Nursing Home i.e., Joldal Nursing Home, Chikmagalur. The accused did talk with the said Doctor. The said Doctor started giving treatment to PW.1 and they went to their house. PW.3 has further deposed that on 26.02.3 999, the accused asked them to be In the School and so, they were there in the School and he insisted them to write to the effect that the acid bottle fell down from the cupboard. Accordingly, they wrote despite her resistance. On 27.02.1999, B.E.O., came and even on that day, the accused insisted them to write the same thing on two different papers and accordingly, they wrote the same. On 16th, PW.1 came to the school and on enquiry, she told that the accused was abusing her sexually and he expressed to her that he was loving her and as she did not agree, he dragged her (PW.1) by holding her hands and so, she slapped on the cheek of the accused and then, the accused poured acid on her. PW.1 further told them that in the event of her disclosing the said fact, accused warned her to take away her life and he would see that she would be separated from her family and in such an event, she .would be forced to come and join with him. Police enquired her and she has given her statement and she has identified M.O. Nos. 2 to 4 and 5 and 6 as the same saree, blouse and bra worn by PW.1 and pillow and broom stick, which she had seen on the date of the incident.

14.1 It is elicited in the cross-examination of PW.3 that It is not true to suggest that morning classes were over on 23.02.1999 at about 1 p.m. and there was lunch break for about 45 minutes. It is not true to suggest that the accused did not call all the Teachers and warned. It is not true to suggest that the accused did not retain PW.1 to write a letter to the B.E.O., in respect of T.C. of students. It is not true to suggest that she did not hear any shouting of PW.1 and that she did not come out from the class. It is not true to suggest that staff tables are by the side of Head Master''s table. Witness has volunteered that Staff tables are on one side of the office at a distance of about 10 feet from the table of Head Master, it is not true to suggest that each teacher was provided with cupboard. Witness has volunteered that racks were provided to keep the lesson books and notes of lessons. When she saw table cloth, chairs and pillow, the same were already burnt. It is true that on 27.02.1999, Basavegowda, Bhadregowda and H.V. Mallegowda had come to record their statements. It is not true to suggest that they gave that statements before them. Witness has volunteered that one day earlier, accused did got written those statements. Further, the witness has volunteered that they were taken by the accused by force. It is not true to suggest that she has not given any statement to them due to any force. The statement is at Ex.D1. On that day, she did not show to B.E.O., about the burns of table doth, chair and pillow. Witness has volunteered that the accused did not give opportunity to speak anything with the B.E.O. It is not true to suggest that the B.E.O., by keeping all the Teachers outside and by calling one by one inside, recorded their statements. Accused threatened them to write on 26.02.1999. It is not true that the accused did not threaten in such a manner. On 24.02.1999, the accused got the statement of Swarnagowri (PW.2). The accused took her signature on the statement by force. Once again, the accused got separate statements from them on 26.02.1999. PW.3 has again stated that her statement at Ex.D1 is given by her on 27.02.1999 when B.E.O., came. She does not remember whether she has given any statement on 26.02.1999. It is not true to suggest that the accused did not ask anybody to give cow dung and he did not ask them to make D. Vasanthakumari (PW.1) to drink cow dung water. It is not true to suggest that herself and Swarnagowri (PW.2) did not insist the accused to admit PW.1 to Government Hospital. The accused refused for the same and insisted them to admit PW.1 to private nursing Home. Accused came on a separate vehicle to the nursing home. It is true that the Government Hospital is in front of Belur Bus stop, Chikmagalur. It is not true to suggest that herself and Swarnagowri are of adamant nature and they were not obeying the words of the accused. It is true that one has to go to Chikmagalur from Magadi via Karthikere. Karthikere is at about a distance of 5 Kms., from Magadi. From Karthikere to Chikmagalur, the distance is about 3 K.Ms. It is true that the house of PW.1 was at Karthikere. They did not try to take PW.1 to her house at Karthikere to change the dress. Her statement was recorded by Police on 16.03.1999. At that time, PW.1 told that the accused poured acid on her. Before PW.1 disclosed about the accused pouring acid on her, they did not know the same i.e., as to how the acid had fallen on PW.1 and at that time, she came to know about the husband of PW.1 and his brother. It is not true to suggest that PW.1, her husband and his brother and the Police In collusion, have created false case against the accused. It is true that the accused filed a private complaint against them as per Ex.D2. It is not true to suggest that at 3:40 p.m., herself, Swarnagowri and DW.1 were present in the office room. It is true that PW.1 was science teacher and she was teaching 5th and 6th classes. It is not true to suggest that she was taking 7th class and Pankaja was taking the said class as Science Teacher. She was also taking 3rd and 4th classes. It is not true to suggest that it is when PW.1 opened the cupboard to keep notes of lessons, acid had fallen on her and that herself and Swarnagowri. (PW.2) had witnessed the same. It is not true to suggest that on 27th, all the three higher officers opened the cupboard and saw the acid bottle, cap of which, was damaged and there was fall of acid inside of the door of the cupboard and they saw the same and went away and they have also reported the same to higher authorities, her relation with the said three officers are not strained. It is not true to suggest that when B.E.O., came to the School, the betterment Committee Chairman - Revanasiddappa was also present. It is true that on 23.02.1999, Revanasiddappa was getting the bore well repaired in the School. It is not true to suggest that the accused was objecting for her work as the same was not satisfactory. It is not true to suggest that PW.1, herself and Swarnagowri (PW.2) are friends and they were not in good terms with the accused. It is not true to suggest that she was deposing falsely due to the said reason. It is true that B.E.O., has made allegation against her as per Ex.D3. It is true that she was Suspended. Witness has volunteered that she was suspended without making any enquiry. She did not act adamantly before Veeranna. But, he made allegations against her as per Ex.D4. It is further elicited in the cross-examination of PW.3 that she admits her signature on Ex.D5 as per Ex.D5(a) and the signature of Swarnagowri (PW.2) as per Ex.D5(b). But, she does not admit the contents of the said statement. It is not true to suggest that they have voluntarily given their statement as per Ex.D6. It is further elicited that according to her, the said statement was taken under force. They orally complained to their higher authorities about taking those statements by force. But, they have not given the same in writing. It is further elicited in her cross-examination that from the Joldal Nursing Home, they did not try to take the victim to Government Hospital. Witness has volunteered that the accused was looking after the victim. It is not true to suggest that she has filed the complaint falsely against the accused. The original of Ex.D14 was shown to PW.3 and it was marked as Ex.D15 and the witness has volunteered that it is not a full statement. It is not true to suggest that acid bottle fell on the body of Vasantha Kumari (PW.1) when she was present in the office room. It is not true to suggest that she has given statement to B.E.O., to the effect that it was an accidental fair-of the acid bottle. It is further elicited that it is net true to suggest that with a view to give harassment to the accused, she was deposing falsely.

PW.4 - C.B. Manjunathagowda has deposed in his examination-in-chief that he knows PWs.1 to 3 and the accused. His wife was teacher in Shishuvihara at Magadi about 8 years next before the date of his deposition. So, they were residing at Magadi. At that time, he was a paper agent. Accused was Head Master at that time. About 8 years next before the date of his deposition, he went to the School along with one Mariyappa, whose grand son was not permitted to attend the School on the ground that he did not attend the School regularly. PW.1 was there in the School and the accused was asking her to write a report against the said boy to B.E.O. He Intervened and asked the accused to excuse the said boy and told him that In future, such things would not be repeated. At about 4 or 4:30p.m., he heard the sound of shouting from the School and children were searching for cow dung. Immediately, he went to the school. Cow dung was pasted on the face of PW.1 and she was shifted in an Auto. At the spot I.e., in the office room, there were stains of acid burning on the table, chair and on the ground. There was no acid near the cupboard. He went to the hospital and PW.1 was not in a position to speak. Firsts the spot panchanama was conducted and then, things were seized and he acted as a pancha to the said panchanamas per Exs.P2 and P4. He has identified his signatures as per Exs.P2(b) and P4(c) and has also identified M.O. Nos. 1, 5 and 6 which were seized under Exs.P2 and P4.

15.1 It is elicited in the cross-examination of PW.4 that it is not true to suggest that he used to black mail the public by stating that he was a paper agent and a reporter. It is not true to suggest that all the while, he was accompanying the Police when they visited Magadi. It is true that himself and Gowramma were the only persons residing at Magadi. It is not true to suggest that he did not go to School along with Mariyappa in respect of his grand son. He does not know as to whether the grand son of Mariyappa did receive a memo from the School to the effect that he was not attending the School properly. He does not know as to whether Mariyappa and his son did give application to the School. Mariyappa was requesting D. Vasanthakumari (PW.1) to entertain his grand son. Again, PW.4 has stated that Mariyappa was requesting the accused and not D. Vasanthakumari (PW.1). It is not true that he did not talk to the accused in respect of the grand son of Mariyappa. It is not true to suggest that he did not hear the sound at about 4 to 4:30 p.m. and that children were not searing for cow dung and that he did not go to the School. He does not know as to whether the neighbouring residents were present or not at that time. Police did record his statement in the School by calling his name. His statement may have been recorded on 16.03.1999. Among the Police, he does not remember as to who recorded his statement. There were two or three Police at that time. He does not remember as to who were the persons present at that time. He had gone to Joldal Nursing Home In the evening/but he cannot tell the actual time at which he had gone there. In the hospital, the son of the accused and one Teacher were there In addition to D. Vasanthakumari (PW.1). It is not true to suggest that the husband of D. Vasanthakumari and her parents were present at that time. According to him, there, was label on the bottle - M.O. No. 1. He does not know as to whether the chit bearing his signature was affixed to M.O. No. 1. It is not true to suggest that M.O. No. 1 is not the bottle which was seized on that day. He cannot say the contents of the mahazar. D. vasanthakumari (PW.1) told on the said day that there was acid on the chair, pillow and broom stick.

PWs.5 to 9 have not spoken to about the incident. PW.5 - Dr. J.P. Krishnegowda is the Medical Officer who treated the complainant at Joldal Nursing Home. PW.6 - Dayananda has turned hostile. According to the prosecution, PW.6 was a witness to the panchanama - Ex.P3. Though PW.6 was treated as hostile, it is elicited in his cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor that he has read the panchanama and after knowing its contents, he has signed the same and after feeling that its contents are true, he has signed it and it is true that M.O. Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are the things seized in his presence. It is elicited in the cross-examination of PW.5 by the learned Counsel for the accused that he has not dictated the contents of the panchanama to the Police and he has not helped the Police during that time and it is true that the Police did not cover them with white cloth and sealed them in his presence. PW.7 - Lokesha is a pancha witness for panchanama -Ex.P3, under which M.O. Nos. 2 to 4 were seized and he has identified his signature as per Ex.P3(c) and M.O. Nos. 2 to 4. Nothing is elicited in the cross-examination of PW.7 to disbelieve the case of the prosecution. PW.S - T. Palakshappa and PW.9 - T. Nagesh Shetty are the Head Constable and Police Sub-Inspector respectively who have conducted investigation. Their evidence has been considered while narrating the facts of the case.

PW.5 - Dr. J.P. Krishnegowda has deposed in his evidence that he is running Joldal Nursing Home since 30 years next before the date of his deposition. He knows the accused and PW.1. On 23.02.1999, when he was treating his patients at about 4:45 p.m., the accused entered into his room without prior appointment and he came weeping saying that acid had fallen on his colleague and that he should treat her immediately. On enquiry, patient told him that acid had fallen from the cupboard. Even after that, he asked her if anybody had poured acid on her, but, she told him that it was accidental fall of acid bottle and she herself was responsible for the same and that he should give her treatment immediately. Two more colleagues of PW.1 were present at that time and they also told the same thing. So, he gave the treatment. There was acid fall on the right side of the face, right shoulder, right arm and right side of cheek. There were 10 to 15% burn injuries. He treated her with first aid and further, she was admitted in their Hospital and she stayed there up to 26.02.1999 as indoor patient. Even according to his opinion, the said injuries were due to the acid. Accordingly, he has issued the wound certificate as per Ex.P5, which bears his signature as per Ex.P5(a). He asked the complainant to come for dressing on alternative day for about 15 days. But, she did not come.

17.1 It is elicited in the cross-examination of PW.5 that it is true to suggest that when the complainant was admitted to the hospital, her general condition was good and the burn injuries were getting healed up when she was discharged and even at that time, her general condition was good. It is not true to suggest that when the complainant was admitted to their hospital, her husband, her brother-in-law and father-in-law were also present.

It is clear from the scrutiny of the above said evidence of PWs.1 to 5 that the evidence of PW.5, which is relied upon by the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant to the effect that at the earliest point of time, when the complainant was taken for treatment to PW.5 -Dr. J.P. Krishnegowda in Joldal Nursing Home, she herself has stated before him that she sustained bum injuries due to accidental fall of acid and nobody else was responsible for the same and the said witness (PW.5) is not treated as hostile and therefore, his evidence proves the fact that the injury sustained by PW.1 was due to accidental fall of acid and PW.5 has further stated that two colleagues of the complainant, who were present in the hospital also told him that the bum Injury sustained by the complainant was due to accidental fall of acid. However, on close scrutiny of the evidence of PW.5, it is clear that PW.5 has no regard for truth. His evidence would show that the accused had come to the hospital and met the Doctor (PW.5) prior to the arrival of the injured complainant (PW.1) and he informed PW.5 that his colleague had sustained injury and was weeping. Though PW.5 contends that the complainant was in a position to give statement and her general condition was good, the said fact is belied by the evidence of the complainant herself as also the evidence of PWs.2 and 3, which would clearly show that the complainant was not in a position to give statement. The evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 3 would clearly show that it was the accused who gave history of injury of the complainant to PW.5 and the entry made about the history of injury by PW.5 is on the basis of the statement given by the accused and not the complainant as she was not in a position to talk when she was taken to the hospital. Admittedly, the complainant had sustained burn injuries on the right side of her face, right shoulder, right arm and right side of the chest due to fall of sulphuric acid and she was reeling under pain. It is inherently improbable that she would herself have given statement before PW.5 about the history of injuries sustained by her and wherefore, much importance cannot be attached to the evidence of PW.5 that the complainant was in a position to give statement and she herself has stated before him that she sustained injury due to accidental fall of acid and nobody had poured acid on her and that she herself was responsible for the injury and to that extent, the evidence of PW.5, which is not truthful and reliable, cannot at all be accepted. The contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant that the evidence of PW.5''is helpful to the appellant - accused to prove that the prosecution has filed a false case against the accused cannot at all be accepted. It Is clear from the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 that the truth as to how the incident took place has not been stated either by PW.1, PW.2 or PW.3 prior to the information revealed by PW.1 after she was discharged from Joldal Nursing Homo run by PW.5 and her family members compelled her to tell the truth and the complaint was filed on 02.03.1999. It was only after. 16.03.1999 that PW.1 told PWs.2 and 3 about the actual incident that had taken place and the cause of her injury and that the said injuries were caused due to pouring of acid on her by the appellant - accused and only then, PWs.2 and 3 came to know that it was the accused, who threw acid on the complainant and caused injury to her and that the injuries sustained by the complainant were not due to accidental fall of the acid.

The evidence of PWs.1 to 3 would clearly show that they were working as Teachers and the accused was working as Head Master in the same School, where PWs.1 to 3 were working. The appellant - accused had threatened PWs.1 to 3 that they should not reveal the incident to anybody and under threat, they had given statement to the effect that burn injuries were sustained by the complainant due to accidental fall of acid as elicited in the cross-examination of PWs.1 to 3 as also the evidence of the defence witnesses. However, the said statements were given by PWs.1 to 3 under the threat of the appellant accused, under whom they were working. It is true that in the original complaint that was filed by PW.1 on 02.03.1999, she has not given details about the harassment caused to her by the accused and it is only in the further statement filed on 14.03.1999 that she has given details about the incident and the fact that the accused poured acid and caused injury to her. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant - accused that PWs.2 and 3 have also given statement before DW.4 - Basavegowda, who conducted enquiry to the effect that they were informed by the complainant that she had sustained Injury due to accidental fall of acid. However, PWs.2 and 3 have explained the circumstances under which they gave statement before DW.4 and they have stated that the said statement was obtained by threat and was riot voluntarily given by them. PWs.2 and 3 have also deposed that only after the complainant informed about the truth of the incident, they came to know that the appellant - accused had poured acid on the complainant and caused injury to her. Apart from the said discrepancy, to which, much Importance cannot be attached In the present case, having regard to the facts opposed In the evidence of the complainant (PW.1) that she was married and mother of a child and she was interested in her family life, chastity and status and wherefore, she did not reveal the incident In the first Instance while giving complaint on 02.03.1999, the overall consideration of the evidence of PW.1 would show that there is ring of truth in her evidence as to how the incident took place. The contradictions got marked in the evidence of the complainant - PW.1, would not in any way affect the truthful and reliable evidence of PW.1, which is to be accepted having regard to the facts elicited in her cross-examination and the circumstances under which she has explained as to why she could not narrate the true incident when the complaint was filed on 02.034999. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant - accused that the evidence of PW.1 is not truthful and reliable and that evidence of PWs.2 and 3 does not corroborate the evidence of PW.1. Appreciation of the evidence by the trial Court is justified and the learned trial Judge has rightly relied upon the evidence of the complainant - PW.1 as truthful and reliable. Therefore, having regard to the above said evidence of the complainant - PW.1, it is clear that the same is truthful and reliable and her evidence cannot be discarded as unreliable or as suffering from inconsistency and contradiction as to make the case of the prosecution doubtful. The evidence of the complainant - PW.1 has to be believed and the narration as to how the incident took place and the fact that the accused poured add on her with an intention of causing her death and the accused had also abused and outraged her modesty, would clearly prove the case of the prosecution that the accused has committed the offences, punishable under Sections 354 and 307 of the IPC.

The evidence of the complainant - PW.1 is corroborated by the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 to that extent that on Immediately hearing the cry of the complainant on 23.02.1999, they went to the chamber of the Head Master (accused) and saw that the complainant was lying on the ground by the side of the table of the accused with burn injuries at the time of the Incident. The material on record would further clearly prove that there were no marks of add near or on the cupboard, where the acid bottle had been kept. Further, the material on record would clearly show that there were stains of acid on the broom stick and the pillow which had been placed on the chair by the side of the table of the accused and also at the place where the complainant was found lying by PWs.2, 3 and 4, when they went immediately on hearing her cry. The evidence of PW.4 - Manjunathagowda as also the evidence of the complainant - PW.1 would clearly show that PW.4 had gone to the hospital and he informed'' the persons present there including PWs.1 to 3 as also the accused that there were no stains of acid burns near the cupboard and there were stains of add hums on the pillow and broom stick and the said fact is corroborated by the evidence of PW.1 and the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 as also the mahazar of scene of offence - Ex.P2. The material on record would further show that separate racks have been provided to the Teachers in the School to keep their respective papers and note books etc., and wherefore, suggestion made to PW.1 that when she went to keep the notes in the cupboard, there was accidental fall of the acid bottle from the cupboard and that she sustained injury is clearly belied and has been rightly rejected in the evidence of PWs.1 to 3. The material on record would further show that the complainant - PW.1 is married and her husband is also working as Teacher and they have got a child and there is no reason as to why she should falsely implicate the appellant - accused at the risk of her chastity. There was no reason for her to make any false accusation against the accused, who was working as Head Master in the school. The evidence of PW.1, which is held to be truthful and reliable contains the ring of truth regarding the manner in which the incident took place and the fact that the complainant - PW.1 sustained Injury as the accused poured acid on her.

The defence taken by the appellant - accused that there was accidental fall of acid on the complainant and the same caused injury to her is clearly belled by the above said facts. The evidence of DWs.1 to 4 is also not of much help to the defence to prove that PW.1 sustained injury due to accidental fall of acid on her as their evidence would clearly show that though according to them, PWs.1 to 3 have given statements before them that the burn injury was sustained by PW.1 due to accidental fall of acid from the cupboard, the said fact is not at all substantiated. Though the burden of proof required to be discharged by the appellant - accused for proving the defence is not one beyond reasonable doubt, in the present case, the accused has miserably failed to substantiate his defence and appreciation of the evidence of DWs.1 to 4 would clearly show that their evidence is not truthful and reliable. It is clear from the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, who were working as Teachers in the School at Magadi that the accused, who was working as Head Master of the school had threatened them of dire consequences in the event of their disclosing truth and under the said threat, they were compelled to give statements suppressing the truth, before the Enquiry Officer - DW.4 and wherefore, much importance cannot be attached to the statements given by PWs.1 to 3 before DW.4, who conducted enquiry regarding the incident. The defence evidence adduced in the present case is not at all helpful to the accused to substantiate the defence taken by the accused that the complainant - PW1 sustained injury due to accidental fall of acid bottle from the cup board.

Having regard to the above said reasoning, it is clear that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant - accused had outraged the modesty of PW.1 and that he poured acid on the complainant - PW.1 and caused her burn injuries with an intention of causing her death and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 307 of the IPC. The Trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant - accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 307 of the IPC. Having regard to the above reasoning it is dear that the said finding of the trial Court is justified and does not suffer from any error or illegality as to call for interference in this appeal. Accordingly, we answer point No. 1 by holding that the finding of the trial Court that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 307 of the IPC is justified and does not suffer from any error or illegality as to call for interference in this appeal.

Point No. 2: In view of our finding on point No. 1 that the prosecution has proved guilt of the appellant - accused of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 307 of the I.P.C., it is necessary to consider as to whether the sentence imposed against the accused for having committed the said offences is justified or calls for interference in this appeal. Learned Fast Track Judge has sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable u/s 354 of the Indian Peal Code and has further sentenced the accused to undergo imprisonment for life i.e., till his death as held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,00,000/-and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for 10 years for the offence punishable u/s 307 of the IPC. Learned Fast Track Judge has further ordered that out of the fine amount of Rs. 2,10,000/-, Rs. 2,00,000/- shall be paid to the victim (PW.1) as compensation. Having regard to the circumstances under which the offence had been committed by the appellant - accused and having regard to the facts of the case and the punishment, prescribed for the offence u/s 354 IPC, it is clear that the sentence Imposed upon the appellant - accused by the trial Court to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months, cannot at all be said to be excessive as to call for interference and therefore, the sentence imposed upon the appellant - accused for having committed the offence punishable u/s 354 of IPC is entitled to be confirmed.

22.1 However, having regard to the facts of the case and the circumstances under which the offence has been committed by the appellant - accused and the punishment prescribed for the offence of attempt to cause murder of the complainant - PW.1 by the accused, we find that the sentence imposed upon the appellant - accused by the trial Court to undergo imprisonment for life till his death is excessive. The offence u/s 307 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years or imprisonment for life and fine or both. It is clear from the evidence of PW.1 that she has spent Rs. 60,000/- to Rs. 76,000/- towards treatment of injuries sustained by her because of pouring of the acid by the accused and as she had sustained burn injury on her face, skin had to be grafted from the thigh portion and skin grafting had to be done. The said evidence of PW.1 about the quantum of expenditure Incurred by her for treatment of injuries and skin grafting is not disputed and the complainant must have undergone pain and suffering as also mental strain because of the injuries sustained by her due to pouring of acid by the appellant - accused on her face and body. Having regard to the said facts, imposition of fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- on the appellant - accused by the trial Court is justified. Further, the direction issued by the trial Court that the said fine amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- deposited by the accused shall be paid to the victim - PW.1 is also justified. We do not find any good ground to take a different view in the matter or to reduce the amount of fine imposed by the trial Court. However, so far as the corporal punishment imposed upon the appellant - accused is concerned, the order sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for fife till his death for having committed the offence punishable u/s 307 of IPC is disproportionate to the proved charges against him. Having regard to the circumstances under which the offence has been committed and the punishment prescribed for the offence punishable u/s 307 IPC, and also having regard to the fact that appellant - accused is already in custody and is undergoing sentence and other facts and circumstances bearing upon the question of sentence, we hold that the interest of justice would be met by reducing the corporal punishment imposed upon the accused for having committed the offence punishable u/s 307 of IPC from imprisonment for life till death to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. Accordingly, we hold that it would be just and reasonable to sentence the appellant - accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 30 months for having committed the offence punishable u/s 307 of I.P.C., and to that extent only, the sentence imposed by the trial Court in respect of the offence punishable u/s 307 of IPC, is liable to be modified and the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court in all other respects is entitled to be confirmed- Accordingly, we answer point No. 2 and pass the following Order:

The Criminal Appeal is allowed in part. The judgement of conviction passed by the Fast Track Court - II, Chikmagalur, in Sessions Case No. 18/2000 dated 27.02.2007 against the appellant - accused for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code by holding that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellant - accused for the said offences is confirmed. The order of sentence passed by the trial Court sentencing the appellant - accused to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple Imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable u/s 354 of IPC, is confirmed. However, the sentence imposed upon the appellant for the offence punishable u/s 307 of IPC; is modified by reducing the corporal punishment Imposed upon the appellant from imprisonment for life till his death to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and accordingly, the appellant is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rs. Two Lakhs only) and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 30 months for having committed the offence punishable u/s 307 of IPC it Is ordered that out of the fine amount of Rs. 2,10,000/- deposited by the appellant, Rs. 2,00,000/-(Rupees Two lakhs) shall be paid as compensation to the complainant - PW.1. Both the substantive sentences imposed upon the appellant - accused shall run concurrently and the appellant shall be entitled to set-off for the period of detention already undergone by him against the sentence now imposed, u/s 428 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Accordingly, the order of sentence passed by the trial Court against the appellant - accused is modified and the judgement of conviction passed by the trial Court in all other respects remains unaltered.