A conviction for an acid attack was overturned due to lack of credible evidence linking the accused, highlighting the necessity of substantial proof in sensitive cases involving caste dynamics.

JUDGMENT :

K. V. ARAVIND, J.

These appeals are against the judgment and order of conviction dated 15.02.2019 in Spl.S.C.17/2015 passed by the I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapur, convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 326 -A r/w Section 34 of INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 ('IPC' for short) and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years with Rs.1,00,000/- fine and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.

2. The appellant in Crl.A.No.372/2019 is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST(POA) Act, 1989, and sentenced to imprisonment for life with Rs.10,000/- fine, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for two months and he is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST(POA) Act, 1989 and sentenced to imprisonment for one year with Rs.5,000/- fine, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month.

3. Crl.A.No.372/2019 is by accused No.1 and Crl.A.No.572/2019 is by accused No.2.

4. The case of the prosecution is that on 24.11.2014, at about 6.00 A.M., P.W.1-Lakshmamma was attacked with acid by accused No.1 & 2 near Maheshwari Petrol Bunk, Manchenahalli Village and caused burn injuries on her face, hands, arm and chest, thereby attempted to murder her. It is further alleged that the act was motivated by the victim’s caste, as she belongs to Scheduled Caste. Accused No.1 & 2 were charged for offences punishable under Section 326 , 307 r/w Section 34 INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 and under Section 3(1)(xi) & 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.

5. The trial Court convicted both the accused based on the evidence of P.W.1-victim and circumstantial evidence.

6. Heard Shri Hashmath Pasha, learned Senior Counsel and Shri Harish H.V., learned Counsel appearing for the appellants-accused, Shri Vijaykumar Majage, learned SPP- II appearing for respondent No.1-State and Smt.Jayna Kothari, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

7. Shri Hashmath Pasha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant in Crl.A.No.372/2019 made the following submissions:

a) The charge sheet was filed and the charge was framed for an offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC, whereas conviction is made for an offence punishable under Section 326 -A of IPC. The conviction without charge under Section 326 -A of IPC is not justifiable.

b) The statement of P.W.1 was recorded on 24.11.2014. As per Ex.P1, P.W.1 was attacked with acid by two unknown persons who had covered their faces with cloth, whereas the names of the accused are stated on 03.12.2014 in the further statement with a detailed history of financial transaction. The motive for the acid attack is stated to be a refusal to have a physical relationship with accused No.1.

c) The FIR is the first and best piece of evidence that records an acid attack by two unknown persons. There is no basis for naming the accused after nine days of the incident.

d) As per the further statement, a financial transaction exists between P.W.1 and accused No.1 over an insurance agency. Due to the financial dispute, the accused are falsely implicated in the case.

e) There are no eyewitnesses to the incident and circumstantial evidence relied on by the trial Court is not corroborative.

f) The acid attack on P.W.1 was not for the reason that P.W.1 belongs to a scheduled caste community.

Owing to insurance agency, P.W.1 had a dispute with m