1. Acid attack — Conviction under Section 326A, IPC 1860 — Concurrent findings of guilt by Trial Court and High Court. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 8 , 9 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 868
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S. OKA, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JJ.
Hakim – Appellant
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi and Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 5303 of 2024, Criminal Appeal No. 5304 of 2024
Decided On : 19-05-2025
Important Points
The Supreme Court upholds the conviction for acid attack under Section 326A IPC, emphasizing the limited scope for interference in concurrent findings and the requirement of substantial evidence for conviction.
Subject
Criminal Law - Appeal against Conviction
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 326A - Criminal appeal against conviction and sentence of life imprisonment for acid attack. Appellants convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge and affirmed by the High Court. (Paras 1, 3, 44)
(B) Legal Principles - The Supreme Court confers limited scope for interference in concurrent findings; it does not interfere unless exceptional circumstances are demonstrated. (Paras 11, 12)
(C)
Facts of the case:
Two appellants convicted under Section 326A IPC for pouring acid on a woman. The incident occurred in 2014 following a prior complaint by the victim against the appellants. The trial court convicted them based on eyewitnesses and medical evidence affirming chemical burns. (Paras 4, 28)
(D)
Findings of Court:
The trial and high courts concluded that guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt, denying the accused's claims of false implication. (Paras 33, 34) (E)
Issues: The appeals chiefly questioned evidence integrity, witness credibility, and the formalities of criminal proceedings. (F)
Ratio Decidendi: Evidence substantiated the victim's injuries as chemical burns; procedural delays were adequately explained and did not hinder the prosecution. The age of the accused does not negate culpability when sufficient evidence exists. (Paras 26, 41) (G)
Result: Appeal of Accused No. 1 partially allowed; sentenced reduced to 10 years. Appeal of Accused No. 2 dismissed.
(B) Legal Principles - The Supreme Court confers limited scope for interference in concurrent findings; it does not interfere unless exceptional circumstances are demonstrated. (Paras 11, 12)
(C)
Facts of the case:
Two appellants convicted under Section 326A IPC for pouring acid on a woman. The incident occurred in 2014 following a prior complaint by the victim against the appellants. The trial court convicted them based on eyewitnesses and medical evidence affirming chemical burns. (Paras 4, 28)
(D)
Findings of Court:
The trial and high courts concluded that guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt, denying the accused's claims of false implication. (Paras 33, 34) (E)
Issues: The appeals chiefly questioned evidence integrity, witness credibility, and the formalities of criminal proceedings. (F)
Ratio Decidendi: Evidence substantiated the victim's injuries as chemical burns; procedural delays were adequately explained and did not hinder the prosecution. The age of the accused does not negate culpability when sufficient evidence exists. (Paras 26, 41) (G)
Result: Appeal of Accused No. 1 partially allowed; sentenced reduced to 10 years. Appeal of Accused No. 2 dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Mahabir Singh, Sr. Adv. Ms. Preeti Singh, AOR Mr. Amit K Nain, Adv. Mr. Gagan Deep Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sunklan Porwal, Adv. Mr. Veerendra Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mrs. Sonia Mathur, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Padmesh Mishra, Adv. Mr. Arkaj Kumar, Adv. Mr. Anukalp Jain, Adv. Mr. Sridhar Potaraju, Adv. Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, Adv. Ms. Seita Vaidyalingam, AOR
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Mahabir Singh, Sr. Adv. Ms. Preeti Singh, AOR Mr. Amit K Nain, Adv. Mr. Gagan Deep Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sunklan Porwal, Adv. Mr. Veerendra Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mrs. Sonia Mathur, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Padmesh Mishra, Adv. Mr. Arkaj Kumar, Adv. Mr. Anukalp Jain, Adv. Mr. Sridhar Potaraju, Adv. Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, Adv. Ms. Seita Vaidyalingam, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to conviction based on lack of medical proof for eye injury, non-recovery of acid, statement delays, and non-compliance with investigation SOPs. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 )
3. Medical evidence confirms chemical burns; investigation SOPs are procedural guidelines; concurrent findings are not disturbed unless perverse or based on no evidence. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 )
4. Concurrent findings of conviction are not interfered with unless they are perverse, based on no evidence, or result in grave injustice. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 )
5. Conviction upheld; sentence of one appellant reduced to ten years due to age and health; sentence of other appellant upheld. (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 )
6. When will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of conviction in a criminal appeal?
Interference occurs only in exceptional circumstances where findings are perverse, based on no evidence, founded on inadmissible evidence, or where a violation of natural justice causes grave injustice. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 )
7. Is the recovery of the specific acid or chemical used in an attack mandatory for conviction under Section 326A, IPC?
No, the recovery of the substance is not mandatory if chemical burns are substantiated through medical evidence and testimonies. (Para 27 )
8. Are Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for investigating acid attack cases mandatory for a valid conviction?
SOPs are considered procedural guidelines and are not mandatory; their non-following does not invalidate the investigation if due procedure was otherwise followed. (Para 30 )
9. What factors are considered when determining the quantum of sentence for a convict?
Factors include motive or past enmity, whether the act was impulsive, the accused's intent, gravity of injury, age and health, criminal history, and post-incident conduct. (Para 37 )
JUDGMENT :
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
1. These two appeals i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 5304 of 2024 and Criminal Appeal No. 5303 of 2024 assail concurrent findings of conviction under Section 326A of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (“IPC 1860”) and sentence thereof against Hakim (“Accused No. 1”) and Umesh (“Accused No. 2”) respectively Appellants herein, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, Delhi vide Order dated 29.01.2020 and by the High Court of Delhi vide Judgment dated 13.10.2022 (“Impugned Judgment”). The Appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, and a fine of INR 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) and in default, simple imprisonment for a period of one year.
2. Appellants, initially moved Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) Nos. 5874 of 2023 and 11118 of 2023 respectively, and delay was condoned in both the said petitions, albeit separately, and this Court issued notice only on the quantum of sentence. As the proceedings progressed, it was directed that the victim in the instant case, be also made a party and was accordingly impleaded as Respondent No. 2 (“Respondent-Victim”). However, as the said petitions were taken up on 14.05.2024, the assertions made by the erstwhile petitioners implied that they intended to even dispute the injuries caused to the Respondent-Victim. Thereafter, while reserving the judgments, leave to appeal was granted.
3. The incident, as alleged by the prosecution, is that on 08.06.2014, at about 11:30 p.m., Bablu (“Complainant”) husband of the Respondent-Victim, gave a written complaint at the Govind Nagar Police Station, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh which resulted into registration of FIR No. 130 of 2014 dated 08.06.2014 (“FIR”) bearing Crime No. 228 of 2014.
4. As per the complaint, at 08:00 p.m. on 08.06.2014 the Respondent-Victim (PW-4) was heading back home, subsequent to her visit to the temple of Galteshwar Mahadev, along with his sister-in-law, Rajjo Devi (PW-6). It is stated that the sister-in-law was a few steps behind the Respondent-Victim when both the Appellants along with Gyani (“Accused No. 3”) to take revenge blocked the way of the Respondent-Victim near the Govind Nagar railway crossing and told her that on account of she having moved a complaint against them to the police authorities earlier, she will face the consequences. Accused No. 1-Appellant and Accused No. 3 held the Respondent-Victim while Accused No. 2-Appellant, poured acid over her and then ran away from the spot. Respondent-Victim started screaming in agony instantly. Rajjo Devi (PW-6) who was following the Victim took her to hospital and got her admitted. All the accused being their neighbours at Laxmi Nagar under the jurisdiction of Krishna Nagar Police Chowki of Kotwali Police Station, Mathura were known to each other.
5. Having recorded the statements of the Respondent-Victim (PW-4) and Rajjo Devi (PW-6) on 09.06.2014 and 11.06.2014 respectively, the Investigating Officer on completion of investigation filed the Final Report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C. 1973”). Subsequent to the cognizance having been taken and on account of all the accused claiming to be not guilty, case was moved for trial before the District and Sessions Court, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh for offences under section 326A read with 34 IPC 1860.
6. During the pendency of the trial, at the behest of the Complainant, Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 176 of 2015 was moved before this Court, seeking transfer of the trial to Delhi, which was allowed vide Order dated 01.09.2015.
7. A total of 14 witnesses were examined by the prosecution, the statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 1973 were recorded and 03 witnesses in defence were produced.
8. The Trial Court proceeded to convict the accused and pass the sentence as follows:
