Razzak vs State Of U.P.

Reserved on 19.05.2026
Delivered on 15.07.2026
AFR
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2810 of 1983
Razzak
…..Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
…..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Hari Narayan Singh, P.p. Srivastava,
Syed Wajid Ali
Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.G.A.
Court No. - 93
HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.
1. Heard Ms. Vaishali Rai, learned Amicus Curiae for the
appellant and Shri Purshottam Maurya, learned AGA for the State.
2. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant
Razzak against the judgment and order passed by the learned
Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur, in S.T. No. 219 of 1983, whereby the
appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo three years
R.I. under Section 326 IPC.
3. Tersely, the prosecution story is that the appellant and the
deceased Gulam Husain resided together on the upper floor of their

2
CRLA No. - 2810 of 1983
double-storeyed house at village Bichhia, the ground floor whereof
was in occupation of tenants. It is the case of the prosecution that on
05.09.1981, at about 7 A.M., a quarrel took place between the
appellant and his father inside the said upper floor of the building
where the two of them were residing together, in the course of
which the appellant poured acid upon the person of his father. The
occurrence is stated to have taken place within the four walls of the
house, in circumstances where independent outsiders were not
ordinarily expected to be present. Immediately after the occurrence,
the appellant is said to have attempted to flee towards the south but
was apprehended on the spot by P.W.-1 Mahatam Singh, with the
assistance of Ram Sakal, while he was still running away after
pouring the acid on his father. The appellant was thereafter handed
over to the police.
4. After registration of the FIR, Investigating Officer has
collected the documentary and oral evidences. Ex. Ka.-1 and Ex.
Ka.-6 is the FIR, which has been proved by P.W.-1. Ex. Ka.-2 is the
injury report of accused Razzaq, which has been proved by P.W.-3.
Ex. Ka.-3 is the injury report of Gulam Husain, which has been
proved by P.W.-4. Ex. Ka.-4 is the post mortem report of Gulam
Husain, which has been proved by P.W.-5. Ex. Ka.-5 is the
statement of Gulam Hussain, which has been proved by P.W.-6. Ex.
Ka.-7 is the G.D. entry. Ex. Ka.-8 is the panchnama, Ex. Ka-9 is the

3
CRLA No. - 2810 of 1983
challan, Ex. Ka.-10 is the sketch, Ex. Ka.-11 is the letter for post
mortem examination of Gulam Husain, Ex. Ka.-12 is the G.D.
entry, Ex. Ka.13 is the site plan, Ex. Ka-14 is the statement of Jiyani
and Ex. Ka.-15 is the chargesheet, which have been proved by
P.W.-7.
5. The learned Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur has framed the
charge against the appellant on 18.06.1983 under Section 302 IPC.
In support of their case, the prosecution has examined Mahatam
(informant) as P.W.-1, Smt. Jiyani as P.W.-2, who is the eye witness,
Dr. U.N. Pandey as P.W.-3, who has examined the injuries of
Razzak, Dr. K.K. Dixit as P.W.-4, who has examined the injuries of
deceased Gulam Husain, Dr. K.M. Singh as P.W.-5, who has
conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Gulam Husain and
prepared the post mortem report, S.I. Umesh Chand as P.W.-6, who
had recorded the statement of Gulam Husain and Ram Janam Yadav
as P.W.-7, who conducted later part of the investigation and
submitted charge-sheet. The defence has examined Abdul Nisar as
D.W.-1.
6. The grounds of the appeal in brief are that the conviction of
the appellant is against the weight of evidence on record and is bad
in law. Furthermore, the sentence awarded to the appellant is too
severe.

4
CRLA No. - 2810 of 1983
7. P.W.-1 stated in examination-in-chief, in brief, that while
going to his field at about 9:00 a.m., he heard an alarm and saw the
accused fleeing towards the drain. He and other villagers chased
and apprehended the accused. P.W.-1 did not witness the accused
throwing acid from the roof. According to the prosecution, the acid
was thrown on Gulam Husain during a scuffle. Gulam Husain’s
body had turned black due to the acid burns, and the accused,
Razzaq, had sustained acid splashes on his hand. The injured Gulam
Husain was taken to the Medical College by Abdul Nisar, a
rickshaw puller. P.W.-1 lodged the FIR.
8. P.W.-2 Smt. Jiyani stated, in examination-in-chief that
Razzak is the son of Gulam Husain. My house is situated opposite
the entrance of Gulam Husain’s house. I do not know when or how
Gulam Husain died. He has since passed away.
9. P.W.-3, Dr. U.N. Pandey stated, in examination-in-chief that
on 05.09.1981 he examined the accused Razzaq and found simple
injuries on his hand, consistent with acid splashes. He opined that
the injuries had been caused on 05.09.1981 at about 7:00 a.m. He
prepared the injury report and proved the same before the Court.
10. P.W.-4 Dr. K.K. Dixit stated in his examination-in-chief, in
brief, that he conducted the medical examination of the deceased,
Gulam Husain, and found approximately 60% acid burn injuries
involving the face, neck, chest, and upper part of body. He opined

5
CRLA No. - 2810 of 1983
that the injuries were fresh, sustained at about 7:00 a.m. on
05.09.1981, and were caused by acid. According to him, such 60%
acid burns were sufficient to endanger life and carried the
possibility of causing death. He referred the patient to the Eye
Surgeon and Plastic Surgeon for specialized treatment and proved
the injury report before the Court.
11. P.W.-5, Dr. K.N. Singh stated in his examination-in-chief, in
brief, that he conducted the post-mortem examination and proved
the post-mortem report. He found extensive corrosive (acid) burn
injuries over almost the entire upper part of body, including the
face, front and back of the neck, chest, scalp, both upper limbs,
forehead, and eyes. The burns were deep, ulcerated, muscle-deep at
places, with blackening and peeling of the skin, and the left eyeball
was shrunken due to the burns. The post-mortem recorded multiple
extensive burn injuries, including a 20” × 12” burn over the neck
and chest, 19” × 8” burn over the right upper limb, 24” × 3½” burn
over the left upper limb, 4” × 5” burn over the left frontal region,
17” burn over the scalp, and a 29” × 14” ulcerated burn extending
from the back of the neck to the hip, muscle-deep with loss of skin.
PW-5 opined that the injuries were caused by acid/corrosive
substance, and that the cause of death was septicaemia and
exhaustion resulting from the extensive acid burn injuries. He

6
CRLA No. - 2810 of 1983
confirmed that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of
nature to cause death.
12. PW-6 S.I. Umesh Chand Upadhyay stated in his
examination-in-chief that he recorded the statement of the injured
Gulam Husain at the Medical College Hospital on 08.09.1981. He
deposed that the deceased Ghulam Hussain had informed him that
acid had been thrown on him; however, by inadvertence, the word
“liquor ( )” was written instead of “acid ( )” in the Case
शराब तेजाब
Diary, which he clarified before the Court. Following Gulam
Husain’s death 12–14 days later, the statement was treated as a
dying declaration.
13. PW-7, Ram Janam Yadav, Investigating Officer stated in his
examination-in-chief, in brief, that he took over the investigation on
17.12.1981 after information regarding the victim’s death was
received at the police station. Consequently, the offence was
converted from Section 326 IPC to Section 304 IPC on 21.10.1981.
He examined the earlier investigation, recorded the statement of
Mahatam Singh (P.W.-1), and completed the remaining
investigation by preparing and signing the relevant papers.
14. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant
has not committed the offence alleged by the prosecution and has
been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the

7
CRLA No. - 2810 of 1983
death of his father was purely accidental. The appellant himself
made every effort to save his father's life and, in the process,
sustained burn injuries on his hands while trying to rescue him. It is
further submitted that the present criminal appeal has remained
pending since the year 1983 and that the appellant is now more than
60 years of age. Therefore, even if this Court comes to the
conclusion that the appellant is guilty of the offence, he deserves to
be extended the benefit of probation in view of the facts and
circumstances of the case.
15. Learned AGA vehemently opposed the submissions advanced
on behalf of the appellant and supported the findings and judgment
of the trial court. It is submitted that the appellant is the real son of
the deceased, Gulam Hasan, and no enmity or ulterior motive has
been brought on record to suggest that he has been falsely
implicated in this case. It is further submitted that during an
altercation with the deceased, the appellant intentionally poured
acid on the vital parts of the deceased's body, causing grievous burn
injuries. The deceased succumbed to the injuries during the course
of treatment about 20 days after the incident. It further contended
that although the appellant had committed a grave offence
amounting to murder or culpable homicide, the trial court adopted a
lenient approach by convicting and sentencing him only under
Section 326 IPC.

8
CRLA No. - 2810 of 1983
16. It has come on record, and has not been seriously disputed,
that the appellant himself also sustained burn injuries by acid during
the course of the commission of the offence, which injuries were
found to be superficial in nature on examination by P.W.3 Dr. U.N.
Pandey, as opposed to the extensive 60% acid burns sustained by
the deceased and noted by P.W.4 Dr. K.K. Dixit and P.W.5 Dr. K.N.
Singh, who conducted the post-mortem examination. This disparity
in the nature and extent of the injuries sustained by the appellant, on
the one hand, and the deceased, on the other, is itself a strong
pointer to the fact that it was the appellant who was the aggressor
and not the reverse, as sought to be suggested. The deceased Gulam
Husain did not die instantaneously. He succumbed to his injuries
after prolonged medical treatment, death having occurred
approximately three weeks after the occurrence, on account of
septicaemia and exhaustion consequent upon the extensive burn
injuries. The accused, in his Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement, admitted
that acid was thrown during the scuffle but failed to explain how
Gulam Husain sustained the injuries.
17. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer,
P.W.6 S.I. Umesh Chand Upadhya, visited the deceased at the
Medical College Hospital on 08.09.1981 and recorded his statement
under Section 161 Cr.P.C., which statement clearly implicated the
appellant as the person responsible for causing the injuries. Having

9
CRLA No. - 2810 of 1983
regard to the fact that this statement was made by the deceased in
relation to the cause of his death and the circumstances thereof, and
was followed by his death, it satisfies the requirements of Section
32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act and may be admissible as a dying
declaration, notwithstanding that it was not recorded before a
Magistrate. The diseased Gulam Husain was unable to speak
properly at the time of statement recorded and 161 Cr.P.C. by the
investigating officer, but he has specifically stated that some
material was thrown by his son Razak over him. So far involvement
of the accused is concerned, is not doubtful on the basis of evidence
available on the record. It is also pertinent to mention here that the
accused Razzak has not hospitalised the deceased to provide the
proper medical treatment in order to save the life of his father, the
deceased was hospitalised by a third person, though, he was present
on the spot at the time of occurrence. The accused Razzak tried to
escape from the spot after committing the offence, and he was
apprehended by the independent witnesses just some distance away
from the place of occurrence. It also clearly transpires the mala fide
conduct and behaviour of the applicant.
18. The medical evidence on record, taken cumulatively, further
discloses that the appellant was aware of the likely consequences of
pouring acid upon a human being. Acid is a substance whose
corrosive and dangerous nature is a matter of common knowledge.

10
CRLA No. - 2810 of 1983
Its deliberate use on the body of another person, particularly in the
manner and to the extent reflected by the injuries sustained by the
deceased, is sufficient to impute to the appellant the knowledge that
his act was likely to cause death or such bodily injury as was likely
to cause death. In these circumstances, the findings recorded by the
learned trial court that the appellant did not possess the requisite
knowledge to attract the offence of murder or culpable homicide
does not, in the considered view of this Court, appear to be correct
or sustainable on the basis of facts and circumstances and evidence
on record.
19. It is, however, noticed that although the appellant stood
charged under Section 302 I.P.C., the trial court proceeded to
convict him for the lesser offence punishable under Section 326
I.P.C. (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or
means). On the basis of evidence fact & circumstances available on
the record in totality, it appears that applicant was required to
convict under section 304 of IPC on the ground that he had
knowledge that what he is doing at the time of commencement of
offence against his father by way of pouring the acid over the vital
part of the body of deceased. On the basis of observation
hereinabove, I am not agree with the findings of the trial court. In
this regard, section 326 I.P.C., as it stood applicable, prescribes a
mandatory sentence along with imposition of fine and the trial court

11
CRLA No. - 2810 of 1983
was also required to award a proper sentence of imprisonment and
fine which is as an integral and mandatory part of a sentence under
the said Section. It is seen from the impugned judgment that no
such proper sentence was in fact awarded by the trial court. This
Court is of the view that the trial court committed material legal
error in this regard, in failing to impose the fine mandated by law
upon recording a conviction under Section 326 I.P.C. Where the
IPC provision prescribes punishment in the form, “…shall be
punished with imprisonment … and shall also be liable to fine”, or
“…with imprisonment and fine”, the trial court is expected to
impose fine also. Failure to impose fine amounts to legal error in
sentencing.
20. Before parting with the record, this Court considers it
necessary to record its deep anguish over the manner in which the
learned Trial Judge dealt with the present sessions trial. The accused
was charged for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC on
the allegation that he intentionally caused the homicidal death of his
own father by pouring acid upon him, resulting in fatal burn
injuries. The evidence on record, both ocular and medical,
unmistakably required a careful examination with reference to the
ingredients of Section 302 or 304 IPC. However, the learned Trial
Judge, by a manifest misappreciation of the evidence and a
complete failure to apply the settled principles governing the

12
CRLA No. - 2810 of 1983
offence of murder/culpable homicide, recorded a conviction only
under Section 326 IPC and imposed a sentence of merely three
years’ rigorous imprisonment. No legally sustainable reason has
been assigned for discarding the charge of murder or for extending
such extraordinary and unwarranted leniency. The omission to
impose the statutory sentence of fine, which formed an integral part
of the punishment prescribed under Section 326 IPC, further
reflects patent non-application of mind to the mandatory provisions
of law and the settled principles governing sentencing. The
cumulative effect of these glaring errors resulted in a serious
miscarriage of justice. This Court is conscious that the impugned
judgment was rendered more than four decades ago and that the
concerned Presiding Officer has, in all probability, demitted judicial
office. Nevertheless, the passage of time cannot dilute the duty of
this Court to record its disapproval of an adjudication which
displays a serious failure to appreciate the evidence, apply the
correct legal principles and impose the punishment mandated by
law. Judicial discretion is never synonymous with judicial
arbitrariness. Sympathy or misplaced leniency has no place where
the statute and the evidence demand a reasoned and lawful
adjudication. Such lapses have the potential to erode public
confidence in the administration of criminal justice. It is, therefore,
considered appropriate to observe that every judicial officer trying

13
CRLA No. - 2810 of 1983
criminal cases must exercise the highest degree of care, legal
acumen and judicial discipline while recording findings on guilt and
imposing sentence. This judgment shall serve as a reminder that
failure to discharge these fundamental judicial obligations may
invite serious judicial criticism and, where the officer is in service,
appropriate administrative consequences in accordance with law.
21. It is informed by the learned A.G.A. that no separate appeal
or revision for enhancement of sentence has been preferred by the
State against the judgment of the trial court. In the absence of any
such appeal by the State, and having regard to the well-settled
principle that an appellate court ought not to enhance a sentence, or
otherwise alter a finding to the prejudice of the accused. On an
appeal preferred by the accused alone, this Court refrains from
disturbing the sentence awarded by the trial court or from
converting the conviction to one under a higher provision,
notwithstanding the observations made hereinabove regarding the
correctness of the trial court’s reasoning.
22. This Court is further of the view that the trial court, in
assigning the benefit, it did to the appellant on the question of
sentence, adopted an unduly lenient approach and thereby fell into
legal error. The offence in question was committed by the appellant
against his own father, within the sanctity of their shared home, and
resulted in the latter’s death after prolonged suffering.

14
CRLA No. - 2810 of 1983
23. Having regard to the gravity and mode of committing the
offence, there is no reasonable ground made out on the record
which would justify extending to the appellant the benefit of release
on probation of good conduct. The submission made on behalf of
the appellant seeking such benefit is, accordingly, rejected.
24. For the reasons recorded above, this Court finds no merit in
the appeal insofar as it challenges the finding of guilt recorded
against the appellant. The sentence awarded by the learned Sessions
Judge, Gorakhpur in S.T. No. 219 of 1983, though found to suffer
from a legal infirmity on account of non-imposition of the
mandatory fine as sentence under Section 326 I.P.C., is not
disturbed, in the absence of any appeal or revision by for
enhancement thereof. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant
under Section 326 IPC is upheld.
25. The appeal is dismissed.
26. The appellant, if on bail, shall surrender within a period of
two weeks from today to serve out the remainder of the sentence.
The bail bonds are cancelled and sureties, if any, are discharged
from their liabilities.
27. If the appellant fails to surrender within stipulated period as
above, learned trial court is directed to take immediate legal steps
adopting coercive measures including issuance of non-bailable

15
CRLA No. - 2810 of 1983
warrant to take the appellant into custody for execution of sentence
in accordance with law.
28. Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted forthwith to the
trial court concerned along with trial court record for compliance.
29. The Registrar (Compliance) is also directed to serve a copy of
this order within 48 hours by FAX/e-mail to the concerned court
through District & Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur for compliance.
30. Let Ms. Vaishali Rai, learned Amicus Curiae, be paid her
remuneration as fixed by this Court yide order dated 07.05.2026,
within a period of two weeks from today.
(Santosh Rai,J.)
July 15, 2026
Ankit.
Digitally signed by :-
ANKIT VISHWAKARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad