Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. In alternate, learned counsel for revisioner submits that if this Court comes to conclusion that there is no perversity in the finding of guilt recorded by trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court, then considering that revisioner is the first offender, incident is of the year 1997, he remained in custody for some days, the sentence imposed upon revisioner be reduced to the period which he has already undergone.

7. On the other hand, counsel appearing on behalf of the State supports the impugned judgements and submits that on the basis of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the revisioner has been held guilty by two Courts below for commission of offence punishable under Section 326 IPC. He further submitted that it is well settled that in case of acid attacks, the Courts should not show any leniency towards accused, therefore, the sentence imposed upon revisioner deserves to be affirmed.

In the case on hand, PW-1, who is the victim of acid attack, had ample opportunity to identify the assailant, he has identified the accused as assailant who threw acid on him and in the absence of any circumstances which would discredit his testimony, the trial Court was justified in placing reliance on his testimony.

17. The trial Court after evaluating the evidence of PW-1 and the medical evidence adduced, found the revisioner guilty under Section 326 of IPC and the same has been affirmed by the appellate Court. For interference in concurrent findings of fact in revision, it has to be shown that the findings recorded by the Courts below are based on inadmissible or irrelevant materials or are so perverse that no reasonable person will come to such conclusion on the materials. In case of Malkeet Singh Gill vs. State of CG & ors, reported in (2022) 8 SCC 204, the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope of Section 397 CrPC, has observed that if the Courts below have recorded the finding of fact, the question of re- appreciation of evidence by the third Court does not arise unless it is found to be totally perverse. Para-11 of the said decision is reproduced herein below:-