Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed two criminal appeals filed by Hakim and Umesh, who were convicted under Section 326A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for an acid attack on a woman. The incident occurred on June 8, 2014, when the victim was returning home from a temple; the appellants, along with a third accused, poured acid on her, causing severe injuries including eye damage. The Trial Court sentenced Hakim and Umesh to life imprisonment with a fine of INR 1,00,000 each, and the High Court of Delhi affirmed the conviction and sentence. The appellants challenged the concurrent findings, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove the source of acid and that the eye injury was pre-existing. The Supreme Court, applying the settled principle that it does not interfere with concurrent findings unless they are perverse or based on no evidence, found no such infirmity. The Court noted that the victim and her sister-in-law, who were eyewitnesses, consistently implicated the appellants, and minor discrepancies in their testimony were not material. The Court also rejected the argument regarding the source of acid, observing that Section 326A does not require proof of procurement. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, and the life sentence was upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Acid Attack - Section 326A IPC - Conviction - Concurrent findings of guilt by Trial Court and High Court upheld - Appellants convicted for pouring acid on victim causing grievous injuries - Supreme Court declined to re-appreciate evidence as no perversity or legal error shown - Held that minor discrepancies in witness testimony do not warrant interference (Paras 11-15, 18-20). B) Criminal Procedure - Special Leave Petition - Article 136 - Interference with concurrent findings - Principles reiterated - Court interferes only when findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or cause grave injustice - Held that mere possibility of another view is not ground for interference (Paras 11-14). C) Evidence Law - Witness Testimony - Minor discrepancies - Not to be given undue importance - Witnesses cannot recall every detail; memory variations are natural - Held that courts should not discard credible testimony on trivial inconsistencies (Para 13).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Supreme Court should interfere with concurrent findings of conviction under Section 326A IPC where the appellants challenge the evidence and sentence
Final Decision
Appeals dismissed; conviction and life sentence under Section 326A IPC upheld
Law Points
- Concurrent findings of fact not interfered with unless perverse or based on no evidence
- Minor discrepancies in witness testimony not to be given undue importance
- Scope of Article 136 interference limited to exceptional cases
