Case Note & Summary
The High Court dismissed the criminal appeal filed by Appellant against his conviction for acid attack and sexual harassment offences. The appellant was convicted by Trial Court for throwing acid on victim's face and harassing her, sentenced to 10 years imprisonment. The High Court found prosecution evidence insufficient for conviction under POCSO However conviction u/s 326-A of IPC maintained
Headnote
Criminal Law-- Indian Penal Code, 1860-- Sections 326-A, 354-D and 506-- Protection of children from Sexual offence Act, 2012(POCSO)-- Sections 10 and 12 -- Code of criminal Procedure, 1973-- Sections 164 and 313 -- Friendship was between victim and appellant/accused prior to marriage of victim girl-- Victim girl was married to another man-- Appellant/accused threatened to victim and thrown some liquid subsantce/acid on the face of her- Victim sustained burn injuries to the left side of her face-- Complaint-- Trial-- Appellant/accused convicted u/s 326-A, 354-A and 506 of IPC and U/s 10 and 12 of POCSO-- Conviction challenged before high court by appellant-- Statement of victim girl was recorded u/s 164 of CRPC-- Father of victim girl/PW-4 and two independent witnesses turned hostile-- VIctim was also turned hostile-- Entire testimony of hostile witness cannot be discarded-- Victim was suggested with regard to accused not having thrwon any substance, denied by the victim-- Presence of appellant established at the spot of incident-- Clothes were smeared with substance-- No explanation offered by the appellant u/s 313 of CRPC with regard to his presence-- CA report suggested that the it was the appellant who has thrown the acid on the face of victim-- No allegation of sexual assault committed by the appellant on victim-- Offence u/s 326-A of IPC proved by prosecution side-- Minimum sentence prescribed for sentence is 10 years for the offence punishable u/s 326-A of IPC-- No question of reduction of sentence-- Conviction under POCSO set aside However conviction and sentence u/s 326- A of IPC maintained-- Appeal Dismissed
Para-- 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for offences under Section 326-A, 354-D, 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 10, 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 (POCSO Act)
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the criminal appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by Trial Court, and acquitted the appellant of all charges under Section 326-A, 354-D, 506 IPC and Sections 10, 12 POCSO Act
Law Points
- Burden of proof lies on prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt
- Inconsistent testimony creates reasonable doubt requiring acquittal
- Hostile witnesses cannot form basis for conviction
- When evidence indicates two possibilities
- one favoring accused must be accepted
- Medical and forensic evidence must be corroborated with eyewitness testimony
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (02) 130
Criminal Appeal No. 797 of 2022
Ms. Anjali Patil a/w Tohid Shaikh for Appellant, Mr. A.S. Gawai, APP for Respondent No.1, Mr. Rahul Gupta a/w Saumya Goyal for Respondent No.2
The State of Maharashtra, XYZ
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal Appeal against conviction for acid attack and sexual harassment offences
Remedy Sought
Appellant seeking acquittal and setting aside of conviction and sentence
Filing Reason
Appellant convicted by Trial Court for offences under IPC and POCSO Act and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment
Previous Decisions
Trial Court convicted appellant under Section 326-A, 354-D, 506 IPC and Sections 10, 12 POCSO Act vide Judgment and Order dated 30.06.2022 in Special Case No. 80 of 2021
Issues
Whether prosecution proved guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt for acid attack and sexual harassment offences
Whether inconsistent testimony of victim and hostile witnesses create reasonable doubt requiring acquittal
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant's counsel argued prosecution witnesses including victim turned hostile creating no evidence for conviction
Appellant's counsel submitted victim gave two different versions about who threw substance creating reasonable doubt
Appellant's counsel argued prosecution failed to investigate procurement of acid weakening forensic evidence
Respondents supported Trial Court judgment citing victim's cross-examination and forensic evidence showing nitrate ions on accused's clothes
Ratio Decidendi
When prosecution evidence is inconsistent and witnesses turn hostile, creating two possible versions of events, the version favoring accused must be accepted as prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt -- Medical and forensic evidence without corroborating eyewitness testimony is insufficient for conviction in criminal cases
Judgment Excerpts
The Trial Court found the evidence of prosecution sufficient to bring home guilt of the accused and hence recorded conviction against him by impugned judgment and order
Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that here in this case the prosecution witnesses including victim have turned hostile and therefore, there is absolutely no evidence in order to convict the Appellant for the alleged crime
It is submitted that in view of the settled position of law that if the evidence indicates two possibilities, the one in favour of the accused needs to be accepted
Procedural History
Crime registered on 23.11.2020 vide No.2639 of 2020 with Dattavadi Police Station -- Investigation conducted including Section 164 CrPC statement and medical examination -- Chargesheet filed -- Trial conducted with 13 witnesses examined -- Conviction recorded on 30.06.2022 -- Criminal Appeal filed in High Court on 2022 -- Reserved on 18.02.2026 -- Pronounced on 25.02.2026
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 326-A, Section 354-D, Section 506
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012: Section 10, Section 12
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 164
