Summary
Two appellants, a father and son, challenged concurrent convictions under Section 326A read with Section 34 IPC for an acid attack on a neighbour, and their life sentences. Applying the limited scope of interference with concurrent findings under Article 136, the Court upheld the convictions, rejecting pleas about the eye injury, non-recovery of the acid, delay in recording statements, the eyewitness's position, non-compliance with investigation SOPs and the first appellant's age. It reduced the first appellant's sentence to ten years' rigorous imprisonment for parity with the co-accused who had played the same role, given his age of about 73 and serious ailments, but declined leniency to the second appellant, an advocate who poured the acid.
Issues
- To what extent the Supreme Court may interfere under Article 136 with concurrent findings of conviction recorded by the trial court and the High Court.
- Whether the prosecution proved that the victim's injuries, including loss of vision, were caused by acid poured by the accused, despite non-recovery of the substance.
- Whether delay in recording the statements of the victim and the eyewitness, and the eyewitness's absence from the site plan, discredited their testimony.
- Whether non-compliance with the Standard Operating Procedure for investigating acid attacks vitiated the prosecution.
- Whether the life sentences imposed on the appellants called for reduction, including on grounds of parity, age and ill-health.
Provisions considered
- Section 326A read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860The appellants were convicted of voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid with common intention: the first appellant and a co-accused held the victim while the second appellant poured acid on her. The Court found the ingredients established through the medical evidence of chemical burns and partial loss of vision, and upheld the conviction. (¶¶ 1, 4, 26, 27, 33, 34)
- Article 136, Constitution of IndiaIn an appeal by special leave against concurrent findings, the Court does not reappraise evidence or reassess witness credibility; it interferes only where findings are perverse, based on no evidence or inadmissible evidence, vital evidence is overlooked, or there is a violation of judicial process causing prejudice. The appellants' submissions were examined within these limits. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13, 14, 25, 33)
Held
- Following Dalbir Kaur, Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai and Murugan, the Court in an appeal by special leave does not disturb concurrent findings based on appreciation of evidence merely because another view is possible, does not re-evaluate credibility of witnesses, and intervenes only for legal or procedural error, perversity, findings based on no or inadmissible evidence, or overlooked vital evidence; minor discrepancies in testimony are not given undue importance. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14)
- The eye injury and its cause were proved: seven treating doctors testified that the skin injuries, facial deformity and 90 per cent loss of vision in the left eye resulted from serious chemical burns, and the victim's Aadhaar photograph showed normal eyes and face before the incident, so the plea of a pre-existing defect failed. (¶ 26)
- Where the offence was committed at a railway crossing from which the accused fled, recovery of the substance thrown was not possible and the question of its nature and contents does not arise; chemical burns substantiated by medical evidence and testimony suffice, and the plea that the source of the acid was not shown fails. (¶ 27)
- Delay in recording the statements of the victim and the eyewitness was explained by the victim's medical treatment and the family having to leave Mathura under constant threat; the statements were recorded immediately on their return. The eyewitness, only ten paces away, was well positioned to hear the conversation and see the specific acts and roles of the accused. (¶¶ 28, 29)
- The Standard Operating Procedure for investigating acid attacks consists of procedural guidelines and is not mandatory; the prosecution having followed due procedure, no interference was warranted on that ground. (¶ 30)
- Age has no bearing on the commission of the crime; the plea that the first appellant, aged over 70, was unlikely to have been an accomplice has no legal force in the face of eyewitness testimony, particularly as he had regularly appeared before the trial court in good health. (¶ 31)
- Sentencing is guided by the factors restated in Jameel and Gurmukh Singh, including motive, premeditation, gravity of injury, age and health of the accused, weapon used, criminal history and post-incident conduct. Considering the first appellant's role of holding the victim, identical to that of the co-accused sentenced to ten years, together with his age of about 73 and multiple serious ailments recorded by the jail medical officer, his life sentence was reduced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs 50,000 and six months' simple imprisonment in default. (¶¶ 37, 40, 41, 42, 43)
- No leniency was shown to the second appellant, who poured the acid: as an advocate and officer of the court he was well versed in law and owed a duty to conduct himself with dignity and respect for law and fellow beings, and having let down the community his life sentence was left undisturbed. (¶ 44)
Result
Criminal Appeal No. 5304 of 2024 (first appellant) partly allowed: conviction under Section 326A read with Section 34 IPC upheld, sentence reduced from life imprisonment to ten years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs 50,000 (six months' simple imprisonment in default), trial court's order on sentence modified accordingly. Criminal Appeal No. 5303 of 2024 (second appellant) dismissed; conviction and life sentence affirmed. Pending applications disposed of.