8. Thus, by way of the ocular evidence as above, the prosecution in this trial has brought on record above the injury sustained by the victim. That is to the standard of beyond any scope of reasonable doubt, in so far as, there is nothing on record to actually challenge the expert evidence of P.W 5. It is now to be seen if the reason of occurrence of such injury to the victim, by pouring hot oil, can be attributable to the appellant or not. To these however, evidence of P.W 3 and P.W 6 would be counter productive for the prosecution. Both are co-villagers. P.W 6 has been declared hostile and P.W 3 says the burn suffered by the victim was due to an accident only. The involvement of the appellant would transpire only from the evidence of P.W 1 and P.W 2, i.e, the defacto complainant/son of the victim and the victim herself respectively. Amongst them however, P.W 1 is not an eye witness. Also that he has not been interrogated by police before deposing in Court and was deposing in Court for the first time. Therefore, it is evidence of the victim only, i.e, P.W 2, remains to be weighed by the trial Court, so far as involvement of the present appellant as to the alleged offence is concerned.
