Plea Of Improbability Has No Legal Force In Presence Of Eye-Witnesses & Their Testimony: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction In Acid Attack Case
The Supreme Court partly allowed an Appeal in a case involving an acid attack, modifying the sentence of one accused while upholding the conviction and sentence of another.
Justice Abhay S Oka & Justice Augustine George Masih, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has upheld the conviction of an accused in an acid attack case while remarking that the plea of improbability has no legal force in the presence of eyewitnesses and their testimony.
The Court partly allowed an Appeal in a case involving an acid attack, modifying the sentence of one accused while upholding the conviction and sentence of another. The Appeals challenged the concurrent findings of conviction and sentence under Section 326A of the IPC against the accused.
A Bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih held, “On the submission as is being sought to be projected by the Counsel regarding improbability of Accused No.1 of having committed the act as an accomplice is concerned, it may be observed that the age has no bearing on the crime. Even further, the Appellant had regularly been appearing before the Trial Court when it was observed that he was maintaining good health then. The plea of improbability has no legal force in the presence of eye-witnesses and their testimony. This leads us to the non-acceptance of this submission as well of the Appellant’s counsel.”
Senior Advocate Mahabir Singh appeared for the Appellant, while Senior Advocate Sonia Mathur represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Victim was returning from a temple when the two Appellants, along with a third accused, allegedly blocked her way. The Prosecution alleged that the Accused No. 1 and the third accused held the Victim while Accused No. 2 poured acid on her, and then all three ran away. The incident was reported, and the Victim was hospitalised for serious chemical burn injuries, including vision loss.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court held that “ we find that both the courts below have dealt with the contentions raised by the Appellants in depth in the right perspective and we are in agreement with the concurrent findings thereof. Moreover, the case-at-hand does not fall within the circumstances permitting, requiring or calling for an interference by this Court, as have been discussed above. The view that the guilt of both, Accused No.1 and Accused No.2, has been proved beyond reasonable doubt is not only a plausible one but established. Hence, we are not inclined to interfere.”
“The question of the nature and contents of the alleged substance used and thrown on the victim would not arise as the possibility of recovery of the same does not arise as the incident was committed at railway crossing adjacent to the railway line where all the accused ran away after committing the offence. However, chemical burns on the person of the Respondent-Victim are substantiated from testimonies and medical evidence as referred to above. This ground also fails,” the Bench remarked.
Consequently, the Court ordered, “The decision on conviction of both the Appellants as rendered by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court of Delhi, being good in law, is accordingly upheld to the said effect…considering the role in the offence, age and ailments being suffered by the Appellant- Accused No.1, we are inclined to interfere and reduce the sentence and bring it at par with the sentence awarded to the Accused No.3 for his role in holding the Respondent-Victim. The Appellant-Accused No.1 (Hakim) is, thus, sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years along with fine of INR 50,000/- and in default or non-payment of the said fine, simple imprisonment for six months.”
The Bench also remarked, “As regards the Appellant-Accused No.2 (Umesh), it is observed that being an advocate, he was not only wellread in law but owed a duty to the court being its officer requiring him to conduct with dignity, respect law and fellow beings. Having let down the community as a whole, we are not inclined to interfere with the sentence awarded to him vide the Trial Court Judgment, as affirmed by the Impugned Judgment.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court partly allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Hakim v. State Of NCT Of Delhi & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 728)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Mahabir Singh; AOR Preeti Singh; Advocates Amit K Nain, Gagan Deep Sharma, Sunklan Porwal and Veerendra Kumar
Respondents: Senior Advocate Sonia Mathur; AOR Mukesh Kumar Maroria and Seita Vaidyalingam; Advocates Padmesh Mishra, Arkaj Kumar, Anukalp Jain, Sridhar Potaraju and Shiv Mangal Sharma
