Delhi High Court Upholds Conviction in Acid Attack Case, Rejects Victim's Plea to Enhance Sentence Based on Subsequent Attack

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has upheld the conviction and five-year sentence of a man in a 2009 acid attack case, while simultaneously dismissing the victim's plea to enhance the sentence to life imprisonment. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna ruled that a subsequent crime committed by the convict while on bail, for which he was separately tried and sentenced, cannot be a ground for enhancing the punishment in the original case.

The Court condemned the acid attack as a "blatant violation of human dignity" and one of the "most heinous crimes against women," but maintained that legal principles must be followed regarding sentencing.

---

Background of the Case

The case dates back to August 26, 2009, when Deepak @ Deepu threw acid on Shobha, a 16-year-old schoolgirl, after she repeatedly rejected his marriage proposals. The attack left her with 15-18% superficial and deep burns. A trial court convicted Deepak under Sections 341 (wrongful restraint) and 326 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous means) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sentencing him to five years of rigorous imprisonment in July 2012.

Following his conviction, Deepak filed an appeal (CRL.A. 909/2012) in the High Court challenging the verdict. The victim, Shobha, filed a separate criminal revision petition (CRL.REV.P. 446/2013) seeking enhancement of the sentence to life imprisonment. Her plea was primarily based on Deepak's conduct after his sentence was suspended and he was released on bail; he attacked her again in November 2012 with a surgical blade, leading to another FIR and a separate conviction with a seven-year sentence.

Arguments in the High Court

Appellant's Arguments (Deepak @ Deepu): - Deepak’s counsel argued that the trial court's judgment was flawed, citing alleged contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. - It was pointed out that the victim (PW-2) and her sister (PW-4, an eyewitness) gave differing accounts of the container used for the acid (steel vs. plastic) and whether the assailants wore helmets. - The defence claimed that the victim's sister was introduced later to falsely implicate the appellant and that no independent public witnesses were examined despite the incident occurring in a public place. - A counter-narrative was suggested: that the victim accidentally suffered acid burns at her home.

Victim's Arguments (Shobha): - The victim, appearing in person, argued for an enhanced sentence, contending that Deepak's subsequent attack on her while on bail demonstrated his revengeful attitude and incapacity for reform. - She submitted that his actions showed he was a constant threat to her life and liberty, warranting the harshest punishment prescribed under the law. - The attack, she argued, displayed a "conscience-shocking" conduct that made him unfit to be reintegrated into society.

Court's Analysis and Ruling

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna meticulously analyzed the evidence and legal arguments presented by both sides.

Upholding the Conviction: The Court found no merit in Deepak's appeal. It held that the testimonies of the victim, her sister, mother, and brother were consistent and credible. The core facts—that Deepak had been stalking and threatening the victim for refusing his marriage proposal and subsequently attacked her with acid—were proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

"The testimony of PW-2 Shobha is fully corroborated by that of her younger sister Pooja, PW-4 who was an eyewitness... The identity of the Appellant, Deepak and the incident of throwing acid upon her stands proven beyond reasonable doubts."

The Court dismissed the alleged contradictions in witness statements as minor and inconsequential, which did not discredit the core of the prosecution's case. The medical evidence (MLC report) confirming acid burns further corroborated the victim's account.

Dismissing the Plea for Sentence Enhancement: While acknowledging the horrific nature of the crime and the convict's subsequent actions, the Court rejected the victim's plea for an enhanced sentence. The judgment clarified a crucial legal principle: a sentence in one case cannot be enhanced based on a separate crime for which the convict has already faced legal consequences.

"While the conduct of the Appellant, Deepak is absolutely reprehensible, in so much as his act was not only willful but also repetitive, but it cannot be overlooked that for his subsequent act/crime another FIR was registered, in which he was sentenced to imprisonment for seven years. He already having been sentenced for the subsequent offence, this cannot be taken as a ground for enhancement of sentence."

Final Decision and Implications

The High Court dismissed both the appeal filed by the convict and the revision petition filed by the victim. Deepak's conviction and five-year sentence for the 2009 acid attack were confirmed, and he was directed to surrender before the trial court within 10 days.

This judgment reaffirms the evidentiary value of a victim's consistent testimony in acid attack cases while also delineating the legal boundaries for sentencing, clarifying that punishments for separate offenses must be adjudicated independently.