Introduction 

• This is a landmark judgment where the Court convicted the accused under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for committing acid attack on the victim. 
• The judgment was delivered by Justice Siddharth Mridul. 

Facts 

• On 22^nd April 2005 an information was received that some unknown persons had splashed acid on a girl and a PCR van was taking her to the hospital. 
• The investigating officer went to the hospital where the victim was admitted where he got to know that the victim had suffered approximately 25% burn injuries over the face, eyes, anterior chest and both arms. 
• The statement of the victim, Laxmi was recorded by the police officer under Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code. 1973 (CrPC). 
  • She stated in her statement that she was working as a sales representative at Khan Market and had studied upto class 8th. 
  •  She liked a boy named Raj Kamal (PW-4). Another boy named Naeem Khan @ Guddu started developing feelings for her and had also put a marriage proposal before her family. 
  • However, the marriage proposal was turned down by Laxmi citing the large age gap between them. 
  • On 22^nd April 2005 at about 10:30 am when the victim was going to Khan Market a motorcycle stopped near her at Hanuman Road. 
  • The driver of the motorcycle was wearing a black helmet and had a lean body like the appellant (Naeem Khan @ Guddu). 
  • It was further stated by her that the pillion rider was a woman aged about 28-30 years who alighted from the motorcycle and threw acid on the chest and face of the victim. 
  • Laxmi was able to identify the woman as the one she had seen earlier with Imran (brother of the appellant).  
• Thereafter, the appellant was arrested. Further there was a recovery of acid bottle made from the bushes near the children’s park. 
• The Trial Court convicted the accused under Section 307 of IPC on the sole ocular testimony of the victim. 
• The above judgment was questioned on the following grounds: 
  • The name of the accused was not found in the initial information, it was only found in the statement recorded under Section 161 of CrPC. 
  • Therefore, the name of the appellant was an afterthought and the version given by Laxmi was fabricated and concocted.  
• Therefore, the matter was before the High Court. 

Issue Involved  

• Whether the accused should be convicted under Section 307 of IPC for the offence of attempt to murder?  

Observations 

• Testimony of Injured Witness 
  • The Court observed that Laxmi was an injured eye witness in this case and the testimony of an injured eye witness has to be accorded great weightage. 
  • The Court cited several judgments in this regard and held that testimony of an injured witness had a special status in law. 
  • The injury to the witness is an inbuilt guarantee of the presence of the victim in the scene of the crime.  
  • The Court further held that there was no major contradiction or improvement in the testimony of the victim before the Court. 
  • Thus, the Court refused to reject the testimony of Laxmi on the ground that being an injured witness it is highly unlikely that she would spare her real culprits to falsely implicate the appellants. 
  • The Court thus, accepted the testimony of Laxmi. 
• Recovery Of Bottle 
  • The Court held that the possibility of beer bottle with acid stains being implanted cannot be ruled out completely and hence the Court disbelieved and rejected the disclosure statement. 
• Motive 
  • The Court held that it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant bore grudge against Laxmi on account of rejection of his proposal for marriage.  
• Conviction under Section 307 of IPC or Section 326 of IPC 
  • It is well settled that in case of an offence under Section 307 of IPC all the ingredients of Section 300 of IPC (murder) are present except the death of the victim. 
  • Section 307 of IPC requires an enquiry into the intention or knowledge of the accused as to whether or not by his act he intended to cause death which would amount to murder under Section 300 of IPC. 
  • Thus, the question would be answered by examining the nature of the weapon, the intention expressed by the accused at the time of the act, the motive, the nature and size of the injuries, the parts of the body of the victim where injuries were caused and the severity of the blow or blows. 
  • The Court held that the present act was pre planned and the consequence of throwing Hydrochloric Acid on the head will likely cause death must be known to the accused or can be inferred. 
  • Therefore, the Court held that the offence falls under Section 307 of IPC. 
  • The Court also lamented that this obnoxious practice of throwing corrosive substances on girls is increasing and the same must be curbed with heavy hands.  
• Thus, the Court upheld the punishment granted by the Trial Court and found that there was no scope of leniency in this case. 
• Further, the Court also directed the appellant to pay the victim a sum of Rs. 3 Lakh as fine and also recommended that the case of victim Laxmi be considered by the Delhi Legal Services Committee for appropriate compensation. 

Conclusion 

• This Landmark judgment highlighted how gruesome the act of throwing acid on a woman is.  
• The Court called it a crime of passion fueled by jealousy and revenge. 
• The Court observed that in view of increasing instances of such an obnoxious act the punishment granted should be commensurate as the act not only affects the victim physically but also affects her mentally traumatizing her for life.