In acid attack cases, the prosecution must prove identity and involvement of accused beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in victim testimonies can lead to acquittal.

SURESH KUMAR KAIT, J

1. The above captioned first appeal being Crl.A.273/2014 has been filed by the appellant-State under Section 378 (1) of Cr.P.C . against the impugned judgment and order dated 13.07.2012 passed by learned Court of Sessions in FIR No.310/2009, for the offences punishable under Sections 324/326/307/34 IPC , registered at Police Station Jamia Nagar, Delhi.

2. Vide above captioned second appeal being Crl.A.251/2019, the appellants-victims have also challenged the impugned judgment and order dated 13.07.2012 passed by learned Court of Sessions in the afore-noted FIR No.310/2009.

3. The facts, as enumerated in these appeals are, that on 14.10.2009 while victim/appellant No.1 along with her sister victim/appellant No.2 was returning home on a rickshaw from the Beauty Parlour where they worked, situated at Shop No.16, Gali No.8 at Gaffar Manzil, and as their rickshaw reached near Akhtar Manzil, they saw two persons sitting on blue coloured motorcycle. One of them, was aged about 30-35 years and was wearing white coloured shirt, blue jeans, Himesh Reshammiya type cap and the other person sitting on the pillion seat, was aged about 40 years and was wearing a helmet. As their rickshaw reached near them, they were attacked by said persons who poured some chemical substance from a big jug on them due to which they felt irritation. Both of them were immediately rushed to the Holy Family Hospital at around 07:30 pm and their injuries were reduced to the Medico Legal Report and they were referred to Safdarjung Hospital.

4. On the next day at around 12:45 am, statement of victim/appellant No.1 was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C . and FIR No.310/2009, under Section 324/34 IPC was registered. On the same day, when the Investigating Officer (IO) of the case came to the hospital at around 12:30 PM, appellant No.1 in her summary statement stated that accused Afroz had come to the hospital to threaten her. At the instances of brother- Tarikh (PW5) of the victim, IO prepared the site-plan and seized the clothes worn by victim/appellant No.2 at Safdarjung Hospital which were severely damaged with acid, but could not recover the clothes of appellant No.1 as they were thrown by the doctor at Holy Family Hospital. On the next day, i.e. 15.10.2009, accused Afroz @ Sharib @ Shahbaz went to Safdarjung Hospital to know what victim/appellant No.1 had stated in her statement and on her pointing out, accused Afroz was arrested.

5. In his disclosure statement, accused Afroz stated that for the last 1 ½ years, injured /appellant No.1-victim had promised to marry him, however, when he came to know that she had already married someone else, he told this fact to co-accused Shabbir. Both of them decided to finish the girl by pouring acid on her.

6. Pursuant to disclosure statement of accused Afroz, the motorcycle used in the alleged incident was recovered. On the next day, i.e. 20.10.2009, on some secret information, accused- Shabbir was also arrested. He was identified by appellant No.1-victim. The disclosure statement of accused Shabbir was recorded and his arrest memo was prepared. During the course of investigation, Sections 326/307/34 IPC were also added. Thereafter, Charge-Sheet under Section 307/34 was filed in the Court.

7. The learned Trial Court vide order dated 02.06.2010 framed charge under Sections 307/34 IPC against both the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

8. The prosecution in support of its case examined sixteen witnesses in support of its case, including both the victims.

9. Based upon the testimony of witnesses recorded by the prosecution and the defence as well as scientific evidence proved on record, the learned Trial Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 13.07.2012, acquitted the accused of the offences charged with.

10. The appellant-State, in Crl.A.273/2014, has challenged the impugned judgment on the ground that the judgment is based on hypothetical presumpt