The sentence for acid-related offenses must be proportionate to the severity of injuries inflicted; life imprisonment requires justification that was absent in this case.

Judgment :

Praveer Bhatnagar, J.

1. This criminal appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated 28.11.2019, passed by learned Additional District Judge, No.1 Sambhar Lake (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’) in Sessions Case No.2/2015, whereby, the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant, as under:-

Under Section 326 -A IPC :-

Life imprisonment, along with a fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in default of payment of the fine, to further undergo 4 months' Rigorous Imprisonment.

Under Section 326 -B IPC :-

Seven years' Rigorous Imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 25,000/-, and in default of payment of the fine, to further undergo 2 months rigorous imprisonment.

2. Succinctly, the facts are that on 02.09.2014, P.W. 3 Tara Devi, maternal grandmother of injured/victim P.W. 2 Kirti Sharma, gave a parcha bayan (Exhibit P-54) before the ASI Mangilal posted at Police Station Phulera, Jaipur Gramin, stating the fact that her granddaughter Harshita was suffering from “panijara” and she, along with her granddaughter Kirti Sharma and Harshita, went for “Jhada” before a Maharaj. It is also stated in the parcha bayan that the accused-appellant Rinkesh @ Rinki, son of Shankarlal, came on a motorcycle from the Phulera side and poured acid on PW 2 Kirti Sharma's head, face and body and fled on his bike. It is also described in Parcha Bayan that, upon hearing the scream of her granddaughter PW-2 Kirti, she and her other granddaughter PW-6 Harshita rushed to the Phulera Hospital. Due to the pouring of acid on Kirti’s face, got disfigured, and she received various burn injuries on her body parts.

3. Based on Parcha Bayan Exhibit P-54, FIR bearing No.162/2014 under Section 326 -B of IPC was lodged, and the Police, after investigation, chargesheeted the appellant under -A & 326-B of .

4. The charges were read over to the appellant, and the appellant sought a trial. The trial court recorded the statements of witnesses and the appellant's statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The appellant did not lead any evidence.

5. The trial court, after hearing, convicted the accused- appellant under Sections 326 -A & 326-B of the IPC , imposing the sentences mentioned above.

6. Eschewing, the merits of the case, learned counsel for the appellant has prayed that while maintaining the conviction, the substantive sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone. She submits that having served the sentence for the period of 12 years, 4 months, and 16 days, he was released on permanent parole by the District Magistrate, Jaipur vide order dated 26.06.2024 pursuant to the order of the State Government dated 05.06.2024.

7. It is contended that the maximum sentence provided under Section 326A IPC is life imprisonment; however, the minimum sentence provided for the offence above is ten years. It is also contended that there were no circumstances before the trial court that would have warranted a sentence of life imprisonment for the accused. At the time of the incident, the appellant was 21 years old. The trial Court also recorded the findings that PW-2 Kirti sustained grievous injuries and her face was disfigured. However, Dr. Koslesh Sharma, PW-16 who had examined the victim and prepared the medical legal report (Exhibit P-72), has deposed that Kirti sustained two burn injuries, and the final opinion about the nature of the injury can be rendered only after perusing the record. Similarly, the other Dr Pradeep Goil, PW-17, who treat