(Criminal Appeal Nos. 5304 & 5303 of 2024), delivered on 19 May 2025.
2025 7 SCR 27
The appeals challenged concurrent findings of conviction and sentence under Section 326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), relating to an acid attack12.
Factual Background On 8 June 2014, the victim (PW-4) was returning home when the two appellants, Hakim (Accused No. 1) and Umesh (Accused No. 2), along with a third accused (Gyani), allegedly blocked her path3. Accused No. 1 and Gyani held the victim while Accused No. 2 poured acid over her, after which they fled. The incident was reportedly an act of revenge due to an earlier police complaint filed by the victim3. The Trial Court convicted all three accused, sentencing Accused No. 1 and Accused No. 2 to rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine, and Accused No. 3 to 10 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine. The High Court affirmed the conviction of all accused but reduced Accused No. 3’s sentence to 10 years, confirming the life imprisonment for the appellants45.
Key Issues for Consideration by the Supreme Court The Supreme Court primarily considered the correctness of the High Court’s order, specifically addressing arguments raised by the appellants regarding:
• Whether the eye injury and other damage were conclusively caused by acid16.
• The prosecution’s failure to establish the source of the acid17.
• Delay in recording witness statements and their credibility8.
• The sentence awarded, particularly given the role, age, and health of Accused No. 1, and the profession of Accused No. 2910.
Supreme Court’s Findings and Reasoning
1. Cause of Injuries: The Court found that medical evidence and testimonies from multiple doctors (PW-5, PW-8, PW-9, PW-10, PW-11, PW-12, and PW-14) conclusively established that the injuries on the victim’s skin, facial deformity, and 90% vision loss in her left eye were the result of serious chemical burn injuries. The prosecution also proved that the victim had normal eyes and face before the incident, as shown on her Aadhaar Card photograph11.
2. Source of Substance: The Court stated that the question of the nature and contents of the substance used was irrelevant because its recovery was impossible due to the incident occurring at a railway crossing, where the accused fled immediately. The chemical burns were sufficiently substantiated by medical and ocular evidence12.
3. Delay in Statements and Witness Credibility: The Court accepted the prosecution’s explanation for the delay in recording statements from the victim (PW-4) and PW-6, citing constant threats to their family that forced them to leave Mathura. It noted that statements were recorded immediately upon their return. PW-6’s testimony as an eye-witness was deemed credible, as she was close enough to witness the entire act1213.
4. Standard Operating Procedure (SOP): The Court held that SOPs are procedural guidelines and not mandatory, and the prosecution had followed due procedure in the investigation13.
5. Accused No. 1’s Role and Sentence: The Court acknowledged that Accused No. 1 (Hakim) was over 70 years old and suffering from multiple serious ailments14. Considering his role in merely holding the victim, which was similar to Accused No. 3’s role, and his age and ailments, the Court was inclined to reduce his sentence. The Court found no legal force in the argument that age has a bearing on the crime, but for sentencing purposes, it could be a mitigating factor1516.
6. Accused No. 2’s Sentence: For Accused No. 2 (Umesh), who personally poured the acid and was an advocate, the Court found no reason to interfere with the life sentence. The Court emphasised that as an officer of the court, an advocate has a duty to uphold dignity and respect for the law, and having “let down the community as a whole,” he did not warrant leniency917.
7. Scope of Supreme Court Interference: The Court reiterated that it generally does not interfere with concurrent findings of guilt based on proper evidence appreciation unless there is a clear demonstration of material evidence being overlooked, perversity, irrationality, or other serious infirmities in the conclusions18….
Conclusion The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of both appellants. However, it partly allowed the appeal of Accused No. 1 (Hakim), reducing his sentence to 10 years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine, bringing it on par with Accused No. 3’s sentence1621. The appeal of Accused No. 2 (Umesh) was dismissed, upholding his life imprisonment1721.
