Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(RAJ) 7433
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL, J
Saleem S/o Ramjan Khan – Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 133/1989 | S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 216/1989
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Mohammed Anees
For the Respondents: Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere presence at the scene does not establish liability.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 326 - Criminal appeals against conviction and sentence for acid attack - The appellant was convicted under Section 326 IPC and sentenced to two years and six months’ rigorous imprisonment - The trial court's reliance on eyewitness testimony was questioned due to lack of corroborative evidence and procedural irregularities - The prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of the acid attack - The appeal by the appellant is allowed and the conviction is set aside. (Paras 1-20)
(B) Burden of Proof - The burden of proof lies on the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt - An adverse inference cannot be drawn against the accused for failing to establish a plea unless the prosecution has proven its case. (Paras 19-20)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was accused of throwing acid on the victim resulting in grievous injuries. The trial court convicted the appellant based on testimony from police constables and other witnesses, despite inconsistencies in their statements and lack of direct evidence.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to provide reliable evidence to establish the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the conclusion that the conviction was unsafe.
Issues: The main issues addressed included the reliability of eyewitness testimony and whether the prosecution met its burden of proof regarding the appellant's guilt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that mere presence at the scene does not imply guilt. The inconsistencies in witness accounts raised serious doubts about the reliability of the prosecution's case.
Result: The appeal is allowed; the conviction is quashed and the appellant is acquitted.
Judgment
Judgement Reserved on : : 25/03/2025
Judgement Pronounced on : : 09/04/2025
These criminal appeals are directed against the judgment dated 31.03.1989 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.5, Jaipur City, Jaipur (for brevity, “learned trial Court”) in Criminal (Sessions) Case No.61/1987 whereby, while convicting the accused-appellant (for brevity, “appellant”) under Section 326 IPC , he has been sentenced as under:
“Two years and six months’ rigorous imprisonment and Rs.200/- fine; in default whereof, six months simple
The relevant facts in brief are that on a written report dated 13.07.1987 (Ex.P2) lodged by Shri Khan Mohammed with the Police Station Manak Chowk, Jaipur, an FIR dated 13.07.1987 (Ex. P3) under Sections 307 and 324 IPC came to be registered wherein, it was alleged that in the night at about 1:00-1:30 am, some unknown person threw acid on the body of his brother-Phool Mohammed and Saleem also informed him that an unidentified person has attacked him as also Shri Phool Mohammed with acid.
After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant under Sections 324 , 326 and 307 IPC . However, charge only under Section 307 IPC was framed. The appellant pleaded not guilty and demanded trial.
After trial, the learned trial Court has, while acquitting the appellant from the charge under Section 307 IPC , convicted and sentenced him, vide judgment impugned dated 31.03.1989, in the manner stated hereinabove.
The appeal no.133/1989 has been preferred by the appellant challenging his conviction whereas, the appeal no.216/1989 has been preferred by the State for enhancement of the sentence awarded to him.
Assailing the impugned judgment, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that findings of the learned trial Court are based on presumptions and assumptions. He submitted that while convicting him, the learned trial Court did not appreciate that there was no legally admissible evidence available on record to connect him with the alleged offence. Learned counsel submitted that although, the alleged eyewitnesses S/Shri Mangu Singh (PW8) and Ratan Lal (PW15) are Constables; still, they neither apprehended the appellant at the place of incident nor, they lodged the FIR after the incident which raises a serious doubt about veracity of their statement. He, therefore, prayed that the appeal be allowed, the judgment impugned dated 31.03.1989 be quashed and set aside and the appellant be acquitted from the charge.
Opposing the prayer, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that findings of the learned trial Court, while recording conviction of the appellant, are based on cogent material on record which warrant no interference. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the appeal.
Advancing the prayer made in the appeal no.216/1989 preferred by the State, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that since, it is a case of acid attack wherein, the victim has suffered grievous injuries, looking to the gravity of the offence, the sentence awarded to the appellant by the learned trial Court is on very low side which requires to be enhanced suitably.
Heard. Considered.
Insofar as the acid attack on the victim-Shri Phool Mohammed is concerned, from the evidence available on record in the shape of testimony of Shri P.C. Vyas (PW14) who has examined the victim and has prepared the injury report (Ex. P19) and from the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 CrPC, it is established beyond doubt that he suffered injuries on account of it.
Now, the moot question for consideration of this Court is whether the prosecution has been able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant is guilty of the aforesaid acid attack.
The injured-Shri Phool Mohammed has stated as PW10 that in the midnight of 12-13 July, 1987, when he was sleeping at about 1:00-1:30 pm at his cycle shop in Chaura Rasta, Jaipur, he felt burning sensation and found the appellant standing before him when he woke up. He has alleged that acid w
