Supreme Court reduces sentence for one accused in acid attack case: Hakim vs. State of NCT of Delhi (2025) INSC 728 (May 19, 2025)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: May 19, 2025

Citation: 2025 INSC 728

Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Augustine George Masih, J.

In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India considered the issue of sentencing in a case involving an acid attack. The central question was whether the sentence of life imprisonment for the accused should be reduced, considering the circumstances of the case and the convicts’ profiles. The Supreme Court, in this criminal appeal, examined the concurrent findings of conviction under Section 326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the sentences imposed on the accused.

The bench comprised Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih, who delivered the judgment.

Case Background

On June 8, 2014, at approximately 8:00 p.m., the Respondent-Victim was returning home after visiting the Galteshwar Mahadev temple with her sister-in-law, Rajjo Devi (PW-6). Near the Govind Nagar railway crossing, the Appellants, Hakim (Accused No. 1) and Umesh (Accused No. 2), along with Gyani (Accused No. 3), confronted her. They accused her of filing a prior police complaint against them and threatened her with consequences.

Accused No. 1 and Accused No. 3 held the Respondent-Victim while Accused No. 2 poured acid on her. The attackers then fled the scene, leaving the victim in agony. Rajjo Devi (PW-6) immediately took her to the hospital. The incident led to the registration of FIR No. 130 of 2014 at Govind Nagar Police Station, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Initially, the case was moved for trial before the District and Sessions Court, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh, for offences under section 326A read with 34 IPC 1860. During the pendency of the trial, a Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 176 of 2015 was moved before the Supreme Court, seeking the transfer of the trial to Delhi. This petition was allowed vide Order dated September 1, 2015.

The Trial Court convicted the accused. Hakim (Accused No.1) and Umesh (Accused No.2) were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of INR 1,00,000. Gyani (Accused No.3) was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of INR 50,000.

All three convicts appealed to the High Court of Delhi. The Division Bench affirmed the findings on conviction but reduced Accused No.3’s sentence to 10 years from life imprisonment. The High Court also observed that the Respondent-Victim deserved a compensation of at least INR 5,00,000, with the balance to be borne by the State of Uttar Pradesh under the Uttar Pradesh Victim Compensation Scheme, 2014.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provision in this case is Section 326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC 1860”), which deals with voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid.

Section 34 of the IPC 1860, which addresses acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention, is also relevant.

These sections operate within the broader framework of the Indian Penal Code, which defines various offences and prescribes punishments, ensuring the protection of individuals from grievous harm.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants:

• The Appellants claimed they were falsely implicated and that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients to attract the offence under Section 326A IPC 1860.
• They argued that there was no claim of eye injury in the FIR or the statement of the Respondent-Victim or the medical record, suggesting the prosecution failed to establish that the claimed eye injury resulted from pouring acid on the Respondent-Victim.
• The Appellants contended that the prosecution failed to show the source of procurement of the alleged acid or chemical, making the conviction under Section 326A IPC 1860 unsustainable. They suggested the burns could have been caused by hot water.
• They pointed to an inordinate delay of 11 days in recording statements of witnesses PW-4 and PW-6, creating serious doubt, and argued that PW-6 was not an eye-witness.
• It was argued that the Investigating Officer was not bound to follow the Standard Operating Procedure prescribing detailed methodology vis-à-vis an acid attack case is not good in law.
• Accused No.1’s counsel stated that Accused No.1 is an army personnel, aged above 70 years, and it is improbable for him to having been an accomplice in the said act.

Arguments by the Respondents:

• The Respondents supported the judgments of the Courts below.
• Counsel for Respondent-Victim referred to the evidence led by the prosecution to counter the submissions put forth by the Senior Counsel for the Appellants.
• The Respondents contended that the courts below considered all material evidence on facts and law, and therefore, no interference was called for on the conviction and sentence imposed on the Appellants.

Submissions [TABLE]

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

1. Whether the High Court was right in upholding the conviction of the Appellants under Section 326A IPC 1860?
2. Whether the sentence awarded to the Appellants should be reduced, especially considering the circumstances of Accused No. 1?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Court considered several cases and legal principles to arrive at its decision:

• Mst Dalbir Kaur and Others v. State of Punjab (1976) 4 SCC 158 – Regarding interference in concurrent findings of conviction.
• Pritam Singh v. State 1950 SCC 189 – Regarding interference in concurrent findings of conviction.
• Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat (1983) 3 SCC 217 – Regarding concurrent finding of fact cannot be reopened in an appeal by special leave unless it is shown that the finding is based on no evidence.
• Murugan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2018) 16 SCC 96 – Regarding interference is warranted only if it is clearly demonstrated that the courts below failed to consider material evidence or that their conclusion s suffer from perversity, irrationality, or other serious infirmities rendering the findings unreasonable or unjustified in law.
• State of Uttar Pradesh v. Wasif Haider and Others 2019(2) SCC 303 – Regarding benefit of doubt to the accused.
• Kailash Gour and Others v. State of Assam 2012(2) SCC 34 – Regarding benefit of doubt to the accused.
• Sunil Kundu and Another v. State of Jharkhand 2013 (4) SCC 422 – Regarding benefit of doubt to the accused.
• Karan Singh v. State of Haryana and Another 2013 (12) SCC 529 – Regarding benefit of doubt to the accused.
• Dayal Singh and Others v. State of Uttaranchal 2012 (8) SCC 263 – Regarding benefit of doubt to the accused.
• Shahid Khan v. State of Rajasthan 2016 (4) SCC 96 – Regarding delay in recording statements of witnesses.
• Vijaybhai Bhanabhai Patel v. Navnitbhai Nathubhai Patel and Others – Regarding delay in recording statements of witnesses.
• Noor Aga v. State of Punjab and Another 2008 (16) SCC 417 – Regarding stringent procedures are mandatory in nature as held by this Court in Noor Aga v. S tate of Punjab and Another11 to safeguard the rights of the accused.
• Hem Chand v. State of Haryana 1994 (6) SCC 727 – Regarding reduction of sentence based on mitigating circumstances.
• State of Punjab v. Manjit Singh and Others 2009 (14) SCC 31 – Regarding reduction of sentence based on mitigating circumstances.
• Bavo alias Manubhai Ambalal Thakore v. State of Gujarat 2012 (2) SCC 684 – Regarding reduction of sentence based on mitigating circumstances.
• Ramnaresh and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh 2012 (4) SCC 257 – Regarding reduction of sentence based on mitigating circumstances.
• Yogendra alias Jogendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2019 (9) SCC 243 – Regarding reduction of sentence based on mitigating circumstances.
• Jameel v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2010) 12 SCC 532 – Regarding factors while determining sentence of a convict.
• Gurmukh Singh v. State of Haryana (2009) 15 SCC 635 – Regarding factors while determining sentence of a convict.

Judgment

The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal of Accused No. 1 (Hakim), reducing his sentence to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years along with a fine of INR 50,000, and in default of payment, simple imprisonment for six months. The Court dismissed the appeal of Accused No. 2 (Umesh), upholding his original sentence.

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Mst Dalbir Kaur and Others v. State of Punjab [CITATION]* and Pritam Singh v. State [CITATION]*: The Court relied on these authorities to reiterate the principles governing interference in concurrent findings of conviction, emphasizing that the Supreme Court should only interfere when exceptional circumstances lead to grave injustice.
• Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat [CITATION]*: This case was cited to support the principle that a concurrent finding of fact should not be reopened unless it is based on no evidence, is perverse, or founded on inadmissible evidence.
• Murugan v. State of Tamil Nadu [CITATION]*: The Court referred to this authority to reinforce that interference is warranted only if the lower courts failed to consider material evidence or their conclusions suffer from perversity or irrationality.
• Jameel v. State of Uttar Pradesh [CITATION]* and Gurmukh Singh v. State of Haryana [CITATION]*: These cases were used to highlight the relevant factors to be considered while determining the sentence of a convict, including motive, intent, age, health, and post-incident conduct.
• Hem Chand v. State of Haryana [CITATION]*, State of Punjab v. Manjit Singh and Others [CITATION]*, Bavo alias Manubhai Ambalal Thakore v. State of Gujarat [CITATION]*, Ramnaresh and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh [CITATION]*, and Yogendra alias Jogendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh [CITATION]*: These authorities were cited to support the argument for leniency and reduction of sentence based on mitigating circumstances.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by several factors:

• Medical Evidence: The Court relied on medical evidence to confirm the nature and cause of the injuries suffered by the victim.
• Witness Testimonies: The testimonies of the victim and other witnesses were crucial in establishing the sequence of events and the involvement of the accused.
• Age and Health of Accused No. 1: The Court took into account the age and health condition of Accused No. 1, as evidenced by his medical records, in reducing his sentence.
• Role of Accused: The Court differentiated between the roles of the accused, noting that Accused No. 1’s role was primarily in holding the victim, while Accused No. 2 poured the acid.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

The Court considered the severity of the crime, the evidence presented, and the individual circumstances of the accused in arriving at its decision, balancing the need for justice with considerations of fairness and proportionality.

“The Trial Court has duly considered the circumstances at-hand, including the mitigating and aggravating circumstances for all the convicts.”

“Therefore, 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.”

“As regards the Appellant -Accused No.2 ( Umesh ), it is observed that being an advocate, he was not only well-read 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.”

Key Takeaways

• Medical evidence and witness testimonies are crucial in establishing guilt and the nature of injuries in acid attack cases.
• Courts consider mitigating factors such as age, health, and the specific role of the accused in determining sentences.
• The legal profession carries a higher standard of conduct, and breaches of this standard can result in stricter penalties.

Directions

The Trial Court Judgment and the Order on Sentence dated 29.01.2020 stands modified to the said effect of the reduced sentence for the Appellant – Accused No.1 (Hakim).

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Hakim vs. State of NCT of Delhi (2025) INSC 728 reflects a balanced approach to justice, considering both the severity of the crime and the individual circumstances of the accused. While upholding the conviction, the Court demonstrated a willingness to consider mitigating factors such as age and health in determining the appropriate sentence. This case underscores the importance of medical evidence, witness testimonies, and the need for a nuanced approach in sentencing, particularly in heinous crimes like acid attacks.