Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Abuzar Ayyaz Tamboli, was convicted by the Special Court under Sections 326-A, 354-D, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 10 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 for throwing acid on the face of a married woman who had previously been his friend. The incident occurred on 23 November 2020 when the victim met the accused near a public toilet to ask him to stop following her. The accused threw a liquid on her face, causing burning injuries. The victim's statement was recorded as FIR, and investigation led to the accused's arrest. The trial court sentenced him to 10 years imprisonment. On appeal, the High Court examined the evidence, including the victim's testimony (PW-8), medical evidence, and chemical analysis report. The court found the victim's testimony credible and corroborated by medical evidence showing acid burns. However, the court noted that the victim was 18 years old at the time, thus not a child under POCSO Act. The court upheld the conviction under IPC sections but set aside the conviction under POCSO Act. The appeal was partly allowed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Acid Attack - Section 326-A IPC - Conviction - Victim's testimony corroborated by medical evidence and chemical analysis report - Held that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused threw acid on the victim's face, causing permanent disfigurement (Paras 1-5). B) Criminal Law - Stalking - Section 354-D IPC - Conviction - Victim's consistent statement that accused followed her after marriage - Held that the offence of stalking is made out (Paras 2-5). C) Criminal Law - Criminal Intimidation - Section 506 IPC - Conviction - Accused threatened victim before throwing acid - Held that threat constitutes criminal intimidation (Paras 2-5). D) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 10 and 12 - Applicability - Victim was 18 years old at time of incident - Held that POCSO Act does not apply as victim is not a child (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 326-A, 354-D, 506 of IPC and Sections 10 and 12 of POCSO Act is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal partly allowed. Conviction under Sections 326-A, 354-D, 506 IPC upheld. Conviction under Sections 10 and 12 of POCSO Act set aside. Sentence modified accordingly.
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
- Conviction under Section 326-A IPC requires proof of acid throwing causing permanent damage
- Section 354-D IPC requires repeated following or contacting
- Section 506 IPC requires threat causing fear
- Sections 10 and 12 POCSO Act apply when victim is a child
- Victim's testimony alone can sustain conviction if credible
- Minor contradictions do not discredit prosecution case
