Voice Identification Sufficient for Acid Attack Conviction Under S.326A IPC; Delay in FIR Justified by Victim's Recovery: Gauhati High Court - 2025-10-12

Gauhati High Court Upholds 10-Year Sentence in Acid Attack Case, Affirms Conviction Based on Voice Identification

Guwahati, Assam – The Gauhati High Court has upheld the conviction and 10-year rigorous imprisonment of Samsul Haque for an acid attack, ruling that a victim's identification of the assailant by voice is credible evidence, especially when supported by prior threats and motive. The Court also held that a 20-day delay in filing the First Information Report (FIR) was justifiable, given the victim's severe injuries and prolonged hospitalization.

In a judgment delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Mitali Thakuria, the Court dismissed the criminal appeal filed by Haque, affirming the findings of the Sessions Judge, Karimganj, who had convicted him under Section 326A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

---

Background of the Case

The case originates from a brutal acid attack on the night of June 17, 2019. The prosecution established that at approximately 2:30 AM, Samsul Haque went to the house of the victim, Rukia Begum, under the pretext of purchasing a hen. When she opened the door, Haque threw acid on her face and body before fleeing the scene. The victim suffered 40-45% chemical burn injuries, which were grievous in nature.

Following an investigation, the Sessions Court, Karimganj, found Haque guilty and sentenced him to ten years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000. Haque challenged this decision in the Gauhati High Court, raising several grounds to contest his conviction.

---

Key Arguments in the Appeal

The appellant's senior counsel, Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, mounted a multi-pronged challenge to the conviction:

• Doubtful Identification: The primary argument was that the victim had admitted during cross-examination that she did not see the attacker's face. Her identification was based solely on his voice and a threat he had made two days prior.
• Delay in FIR: It was contended that an unexplained 20-day delay in lodging the FIR cast serious doubt on the prosecution's story, suggesting potential fabrication.
• Contradictory Testimonies: The defence highlighted inconsistencies among prosecution witnesses regarding who took the victim to the hospital.
• Ignored Defence Witnesses: The appellant argued that the trial court failed to consider the testimony of the victim’s own brother and sister-in-law (DW.1 and DW.2), who claimed the victim had told them she did not see her attacker.
• Investigative Lapses: The failure to send the seized bottle and mug for forensic analysis to check for fingerprints was cited as a major investigative flaw.

The prosecution, represented by Addl. Public Prosecutor Mr. K.K. Das, countered that the victim recognized the appellant's voice as he was known to her. The motive was also established, as the appellant had previously taunted the victim and threatened her with an acid attack. The delay in the FIR, they argued, was reasonably explained by the victim's critical condition and hospitalization.

---

Court’s Analysis and Landmark Principles

Justice Mitali Thakuria meticulously analyzed the evidence and arguments, providing crucial clarifications on evidentiary law.

On Voice Identification and Victim's Testimony

The Court placed significant weight on the victim's testimony, citing Supreme Court precedents that accord a "special status" to the evidence of an injured witness. The judgment noted:

"The evidence of injured witnesses have greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly... the witness will not want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to falsely implicate a third party."

The Court found the victim's voice identification credible, as both she and her father (PW.2) had spoken to the appellant before the door was opened. It concluded:

"Being a person from the same locality, the victim could identify the person by his voice and there is no evidence to disbelieve this part of evidence... in spite of the fact that she could not see who threw acid on her face, as it was a sudden attack."

On Delay in Filing FIR

Addressing the 20-day delay, the Court deemed it completely justified. It observed that a person who has suffered 40-45% chemical burns cannot be expected to lodge a complaint immediately. The judgment stated:

"It is quite reasonable that a person who faced an acid attack, cannot lodge a case instantly after such attack and it is quite believable that after her partial recovery, she lodged the FIR... the delay of 20 days in lodging the FIR cannot be fatal for the prosecution case."

The Court also noted that the motive for the attack was clearly established through the victim's testimony about prior harassment and threats from the appellant, which the defence failed to rebut.

---

Final Verdict

Finding no perversity or error in the trial court's judgment, the Gauhati High Court concluded that the prosecution had successfully proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court held that the conviction under Section 326A IPC was sound and the sentence of 10 years—the minimum prescribed under the section—required no interference.

"Considering all these aspects of the case... this Court is of the view that while convicting the accused appellant under Section 326A of the IPC, the learned Trial Court committed no error and mistake and there is no reason for any interference," the Court ordered while dismissing the appeal.