The court reaffirmed the principle that in cases of acid attacks, severe penalties under Sections 326A and adequate compensation for victims must be mandated, even if circumstantial evidence is presented.

JUDGMENT

K.V. Jayakumar, J.

This case arises from a night of unspeakable violence. Under the cover of darkness, the accused is alleged to have turned upon his own family and carried out a brutal acid attack on his wife and four innocent children.

2. The accused was charged as the perpetrator of this heinous crime and stood trial before the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ernakulam, designated for cases involving atrocities and sexual violence against women and children, in S.C. No. 408/2019. He faced prosecution for offences punishable under Sections 450, 326A, and 307 of the Indian Penal Code .

3. The learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 326A and 450 of IPC. The accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- for the offence under Section 326A IPC with a default sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The accused was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- for the offence under Section 450 IPC with a default sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. But he was found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and thereby acquitted.

Prosecution Case

3. On 17.01.2019 at 3:00 a.m., while the defacto complainant and her four minor children were sleeping on a cot in the bedroom of their rented residence bearing Door No. 1/176, situated within the limits of Pambakuda Grama Panchayat at Neythusalapady in Memury Village, the accused, who is the husband of the defacto complainant, allegedly committed a heinous act. It is alleged that, harbouring enmity towards the defacto complainant on suspicion that she was having illicit relationships with others, the accused, with the intention of causing grievous bodily harm and possibly death, poured acid into the bedroom through the window. As a result of the acid attack, his elder daughter sustained grievous injuries, including severe burns to her face and eyes, which resulted in permanent loss of her eyesight. His wife and three other minor children also suffered burn injuries on their faces and other parts of their body in the attack.

Proceedings before the trial court

4. The final report in the present case was originally filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kolencherry. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and registered the case as C.P. No.12/2019. After the completion of the preliminary steps, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Ernakulam, under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Subsequently, the Sessions Court, Ernakulam made over the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam, for trial and disposal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing both sides, framed a charge against the accused. The charge was read over and explained to the accused in vernacular, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trial, PWs.1 to 19 were examined by the prosecution and Exts.P1 to P22 series were marked. Material objects 1 to 5 were identified and marked. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. He maintained the plea of innocence. DWs.1 and 2 were examined as defence witnesses. After a full-fledged trial, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 326A and 450 of the Indian Penal Code, as aforesaid.

The submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant

6. Ms. Saipooja, the learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the learned Sessions Judge erred in convicting the appellant without properly appreciating the evidence on record and by placing reliance on an incomplete and insufficient chain of circumstantial evidence. It was contended that the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court are unsustainable in law. It