Hakim vs. State Of Nct Of Delhi

REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 728
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5304 OF 2024

HAKIM … APPELLANT
VERSUS

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. … RESPONDENTS

WITH


CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5303 OF 2024


J U D G M E N T

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J .

1. These two appeals i.e., Criminal Appeal No. 5304 of
2024 and Criminal Appeal No.5303 of 2024 assail
concurrent findings of conviction under Section 326A
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC 1860”) and
sentence thereof against Hakim (“Accused No.1”)
and Umesh (“Accused No.2”) respectively Appellants
herein, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Patiala House Courts, Delhi vide Order dated
29.01.2020 and by the High Court of Delhi vide
Judgment dated 13.10.2022 (“Impugned
Judgment”). The Appellants were sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, and a fine of
Signature Not Verified
INR 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) and in
Digitally signed by
DEEPAK SINGH
Date: 2025.05.19
16:43:47 IST
Reason:
default, simple imprisonment for a period of one year.

Criminal Appeal Nos.5304 and 5303 of 2024 Page 1 of 20



2. Appellants, initially moved Petitions for Special Leave
to Appeal (Criminal) No(s). 5874 of 2023 and 11118
of 2023 respectively, and delay was condoned in both
the said petitions, albeit separately, and this Court
issued notice only on the quantum of sentence. As
the proceedings progressed, it was directed that the
victim in the instant case, be also made a party and
was accordingly impleaded as Respondent No.2
(“Respondent-Victim”). However, as the said petitions
were taken up on 14.05.2024, the assertions made
by the erstwhile petitioners implied that they
intended to even dispute the injuries caused to the
Respondent-Victim. Thereafter, while reserving the
judgments, leave to appeal was granted.

3. The incident, as alleged by the prosecution, is that
on 08.06.2014, at about 11:30 p.m., Bablu
(“Complainant”), husband of the Respondent-Victim,
gave a written complaint at the Govind Nagar Police
Station, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh which resulted into
registration of FIR No.130 of 2014 dated 08.06.2014
(“FIR”), bearing Crime No. 228 of 2014.


4. As per the complaint, at 08:00 p.m. on 08.06.2014
the Respondent-Victim (PW-4) was heading back
home, subsequent to her visit to the temple of
Galteshwar Mahadev, along with his sister-in-law,
Rajjo Devi (PW-6). It is stated that the sister-in-law
was a few steps behind the Respondent-Victim when

Criminal Appeal Nos.5304 and 5303 of 2024 Page 2 of 20


both the Appellants along with Gyani (“Accused No.
3”) to take revenge blocked the way of the
Respondent-Victim near the Govind Nagar railway
crossing and told her that on account of she having
moved a complaint against them to the police
authorities earlier, she will face the consequences.
Accused No.1 – Appellant and Accused No.3 held the
Respondent-Victim while Accused No.2 – Appellant,
poured acid over her and then ran away from the
spot. Respondent-Victim started screaming in agony
instantly. Rajjo Devi (PW-6) who was following the
Victim took her to hospital and got her admitted. All
the accused being their neighbours at Laxmi Nagar
under the jurisdiction of Krishna Nagar Police
Chowki of Kotwali Police Station, Mathura were
known to each other.

5. Having recorded the statements of the Respondent-
Victim (PW-4) and Rajjo Devi (PW-6) on 09.06.2014
and 11.06.2014 respectively, the Investigating Officer
on completion of investigation filed the Final Report
under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (“CrPC 1973”). Subsequent to the cognizance
having been taken and on account of all the accused
claiming to be not guilty, case was moved for trial
before the District and Sessions Court, Mathura,
Uttar Pradesh for offences under section 326A read
with 34 IPC 1860.


Criminal Appeal Nos.5304 and 5303 of 2024 Page 3 of 20


6. During the pendency of the trial, at the behest of the
Complainant, Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 176 of
2015 was moved before this Court, seeking transfer
of the trial to Delhi, which was allowed vide Order
dated 01.09.2015.


7. A total of 14 witnesses were examined by the
prosecution, the statements of the accused under
Section 313 CrPC 1973 were recorded and 03
witnesses in defence were produced.

8. The Trial Court proceeded to convict the accused and
pass the sentence as follows:

Criminal Appeal Nos.5304 and 5303 of 2024 Page 4 of 20


9. Assailing the Trial Court Judgment, all three convicts
moved in appeal before the High Court of Delhi
through Criminal Appeal No 209 of 2020 (by Accused
No.1 and Accused No.2) and Criminal Appeal No. 365
of 2021 (by Accused No.3). The Division Bench
affirmed the findings on conviction of the Trial Court
by observing that the guilt of all the accused/convicts
was proved beyond reasonable doubt and duly
supported by the evidence on record. The sentence
qua Accused Nos.1 and 2 (appellants herein) was
confirmed but qua Accused No.3 the same was
reduced to 10 years from life imprisonment vide
Impugned Judgment dated 13.10.2022.
Furthermore, it was observed that the Respondent-
Victim deserves a compensation of at least INR
5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) and balance amount
thereof (subject to what is received from the convicts)
shall be borne by the State of Uttar Pradesh under
Uttar Pradesh Victim Compensation Scheme, 2014
as the offence was committed within the jurisdiction
of State of Uttar Pradesh.

10. Aggrieved by the Impugned Judgment of the High
Court of Delhi, the two Appellants have moved this
Court as iterated above.

11. Before we proceed further in this matter, let us first
peruse and consider the jurisprudence, as culled out
over a period of time, on the scope and ambit of

Criminal Appeal Nos.5304 and 5303 of 2024 Page 5 of 20


interference of this Court in a criminal appeal arising
out of a Special Leave to Appeal Petition, where
concurrent findings have been returned by the courts
below, as in this case.

12. This Court in Mst Dalbir Kaur and Others v. State
1
of Punjab , while dealing with a petition under
Article 136 of the Constitution of India, seeking
interference in concurrent findings of conviction,
reassessment of evidence and credibility of
witnesses, reiterated the ratio as laid down by this
2
Court in Pritam Singh v. State and observed that
this Court would interfere only when exceptional and
special circumstances exist, which result in
substantial and grave injustice having done to the
accused. Furthermore, also relying on other
decisions of this Court, the Bench went on to
summarize the principles governing interference of
this Court in a criminal appeal by special leave as
follows: (1) it does not interfere with concurrent
findings based solely on evidence appreciation, even
if another view is possible; (2) it avoids reappraisal
unless there’s legal or procedural error, misreading
or inconsistency in evidence, e.g., clear contradiction
between ocular and medical evidence; (3) it refrains
from re-evaluating credibility of witnesses; (4)

1
(1976) 4 SCC 158
2
1950 SCC 189

Criminal Appeal Nos.5304 and 5303 of 2024 Page 6 of 20


interference occurs where judicial process or natural
justice is violated, causing prejudice; (5) it intervenes
if findings are perverse or based on no evidence.
Adding to the same, it clarified that this Court only
ensures that the High Court has correctly applied
these principles.

13. Strengthening this jurisprudence on interference, the
decision in Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v.
3
State of Gujarat observed that a 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; or that it is perverse, being
such that no reasonable person could have arrived
at, even if, the evidence is taken at face value; or that
the finding is founded on inadmissible evidence
which, if excluded, would negate or seriously impair
the prosecution case; or that vital evidence favouring
the convict has been overlooked, disregarded, or
wrongly discarded. Furthermore, while dealing with
the question of reappraisal or reappreciation of the
evidence in the context of minor discrepancies, it
observed that minor discrepancies in a witness’s
testimony should not be given undue importance for
several reasons. A witness cannot be expected to

3
(1983) 3 SCC 217


Criminal Appeal Nos.5304 and 5303 of 2024 Page 7 of 20


have a photographic memory or recall every detail, as
the mind does not function like a video recorder.
Witnesses are often overtaken by unforeseen events,
and their faculties may not register all particulars.
Observational abilities vary among individuals.
People generally recall only the essence of
conversations, not exact words. Time estimations are
often rough guesses. Rapid events can confuse
memory. Even truthful witnesses may, under court
pressure or cross-examination, mix up facts or
unconsciously fill gaps out of nervousness or fear.

14. By the same token, another Bench of this Court in
4
Murugan v. State of Tamil Nadu reiterated the
precedents, observing that it is a well-established
legal principle that when the lower courts have
returned concurrent findings of guilt against an
accused based on proper appreciation of the
evidence, this Court, while exercising jurisdiction
under Article 136 of the Constitution of India,
ordinarily refrains from re-evaluating the evidence
afresh. Interference is warranted only if it is clearly
demonstrated that the courts below failed to consider
material evidence or that their conclusions suffer
from perversity, irrationality, or other serious

4
(2018) 16 SCC 96


Criminal Appeal Nos.5304 and 5303 of 2024 Page 8 of 20


infirmities rendering the findings unreasonable or
unjustified in law. In the absence of such grounds,
the concurrent conclusions are not lightly disturbed
by this Court.

15. With the above guiding principles in mind, we called
upon the counsel for the parties to put forth their
respective submissions.


16. Taking exception of the Impugned Judgment, learned
Senior Advocate on behalf of the Appellants has
pressed that they have been falsely implicated and
that the prosecution has failed to prove the
ingredients so as to attract the offence under Section
326A IPC 1860. To buttress this aspect, he submits
that there is no claim of eye injury in the FIR or the
statement of the Respondent-Victim or the medical
record. Thereby, the prosecution has failed to
establish that the claimed eye injury was result of
pouring of acid on the Respondent-Victim by Accused
No.2. Rather, reference to multiple hospitals by the
Respondent-Victim was an attempt to obtain a
suitable medical report with respect to the eye injury.
Reference has been made to the statement of DW-2,
who gave statement to the effect that he had seen the
eye of the Respondent-Victim to be defective prior to
the incident.


Criminal Appeal Nos.5304 and 5303 of 2024 Page 9 of 20


17. It was further contended that in order to prove the
claim that an acid or a chemical was poured on the
Respondent-Victim, the prosecution was to show the
source of procurement of the said substance, which
it failed. In such a situation, the conviction under
Section 326A IPC 1860 is unsustainable in law.
Alleged burns could, therefore, be caused by hot
water. Arguing that such lapses are to the benefit of
the accused, reliance was placed on decisions of this
Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Wasif Haider
5
and Others , Kailash Gour and Others v. State of
6
Assam , Sunil Kundu and Another v. State of
7
Jharkhand , Karan Singh v. State of Haryana
8
and Another and Dayal Singh and Others v.
9
State of Uttaranchal .

18. The learned Senior Advocate further went on to
assert that there is an inordinate delay of 11 days in
recording statements of witnesses PW-4 and PW-6,
creating a serious doubt as per observations in
10
Shahid Khan v. State of Rajasthan , and
Vijaybhai Bhanabhai Patel v. Navnitbhai
Nathubhai Patel and Others . Moreover, in the site
plan prepared at the instance of PW-4, the presence

5
2019(2) SCC 303
6
2012(2) SCC 34
7
2013 (4) SCC 422
8
2013 (12) SCC 529
9
2012 (8) SCC 263
10
2016 (4) SCC 96

Criminal Appeal Nos.5304 and 5303 of 2024 Page 10 of 20


of PW-6 is not indicated, therefore she is not an eye-
witness. Apart from improvements in the testimony
of Respondent-Victim, the prosecution has failed to
establish the spot of occurrence owing to
contradiction in the statement of the Respondent-
Victim and the site plan so prepared. Even further,
as per PW-6, it was the police who took Respondent-
Victim to the hospital, which does not match with the
contents in the complaint.

19. Learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the Appellants
further contented that the observation to the effect
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. It is further submitted, while
drawing equivalence with Standard Operating
Procedures under the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, that such
stringent procedures are mandatory in nature as
held by this Court in Noor Aga v. State of Punjab
11
and Another to safeguard the rights of the
accused.


11
2008 (16) SCC 417


Criminal Appeal Nos.5304 and 5303 of 2024 Page 11 of 20


20. Learned Counsel states that Accused No.1 is a army
personnel, aged above 70 years, and it is improbable
for him to having been an accomplice in the said act.
21. On the basis of the above submissions, prayer has
been made to allow the appeals and set aside the
impugned judgments.

22. On the other hand, learned Senior Advocate appearing
on behalf of the Respondent No.1 (“Respondent-State”)
and Respondent-Victim have supported the
judgments of the Courts below.

23. Counsel on behalf of Respondent-Victim has referred
to the evidence led by the prosecution to counter the
submissions put forth by the Senior Counsel for the
Appellants. He demolished the arguments of the
Appellants and then contended that the courts below,
while passing their respective judgments have
considered all material evidence on facts and law laid
down by this Court, and therefore, no interference is
called for on the conviction and sentence as imposed
on the Appellants. The appeals are devoid of merit
deserving dismissal.

24. We have considered the arguments rendered by the
parties before us.


Criminal Appeal Nos.5304 and 5303 of 2024 Page 12 of 20


25. The submissions, as have been made by the learned
Senior Advocate for the Appellants, have to be
considered and dealt with by restricting ourselves
within the parameters and boundaries as laid down in
the above referred judgements while navigating the
jurisdictional field of interference.

26. Injury of the eye of the Respondent-Victim and the
cause thereof, which stands questioned, requires to be
dealt with first. As per the evidence led by the
prosecution, different Doctors appeared as
prosecution witnesses who had treated the victim on
various occasions i.e., PW-5, PW-8, PW-9, PW-10, PW-
11, PW-12 and PW-14. All of them have testified that
the injuries on the skin and the deformity of the face,
including loss of vision, albeit not fully i.e., 90% in the
left eye of the Respondent-Victim were the result of
serious Chemical Burn injuries. The doctors
supported the prosecution’s case on this count as well
with regard to the cause and the injuries itself.
Prosecution has produced and proved the photograph
on the Aadhaar Card of the Respondent-Victim where
it is reflected that she had normal eyes and face.
Therefore, this plea of the Appellants fails.

27. The question of the nature and contents of the alleged
substance used and thrown on the victim would not
arise as the possibility of recovery of the same does

Criminal Appeal Nos.5304 and 5303 of 2024 Page 13 of 20


not arise as the incident was committed at railway
crossing adjacent to the railway line where all the
accused ran away after committing the offence.
However, chemical burns on the person of the
Respondent-Victim are substantiated from
testimonies and medical evidence as referred to above.
This ground also fails.

28. The explanation relating to the delay in recording of
statement of Respondent-Victim (PW-4) and PW-6
stands explained and substantiated on the basis of
the medical documentary evidence. Further, it is
stated that their family was under constant threat
because of which all had to leave Mathura to save and
protect themselves apart from the aspect of medical
treatment of the victim. The fact that the statements
were recorded immediately on their return to Mathura
by the police is substantiated.

29. As to the veracity of the testimony of PW-6 as an
eye-witness is concerned, suffice it to say that she was
merely 10 paces away from the site of occurrence and
thus was well positioned not only to hear the
conversation but also to witness the specific act and
role of the Appellants and third accused accosting and
assaulting the Respondent-Victim before they ran
away from the spot.


Criminal Appeal Nos.5304 and 5303 of 2024 Page 14 of 20


30. With regard to the non-following of the Standard
Operating Procedure by the Investigation Officer. It is
enough to mention here that the same are procedural
guidelines and not mandatory. The prosecution has
followed due procedure and measures in the
investigation. Hence, no interference is required by
this Court as far as the said contention is concerned.

31. On the submission as is being sought to be projected
by the Counsel regarding improbability of Accused
No.1 of having committed the act as an accomplice is
concerned, it may be observed that the age has no
bearing on the crime. Even further, the Appellant had
regularly been appearing before the Trial Court when
it was observed that he was maintaining good health
then. The plea of improbability has no legal force in
the presence of eye-witnesses and their testimony.
This leads us to the non-acceptance of this
submission as well of the Appellant’s counsel.

32. In the light of the above, the judgements on which
reliance have been placed by the Counsel for the
Appellants would be of no avail both on facts and law.

33. Having perused and considered the Trial Court
Judgment as well as the Impugned Judgment in detail
as also the legal position, we find that both the courts
below have dealt with the contentions raised by the

Criminal Appeal Nos.5304 and 5303 of 2024 Page 15 of 20


Appellants in depth in the right perspective and we are
in agreement with the concurrent findings thereof.
Moreover, the case-at-hand does not fall within the
circumstances permitting, requiring or calling for an
interference by this Court, as have been discussed
above. The view that the guilt of both, Accused No.1
and Accused No.2, has been proved beyond
reasonable doubt is not only a plausible one but
established. Hence, we are not inclined to interfere.

34. The decision on conviction of both the Appellants as
rendered by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High
Court of Delhi, being good in law, is accordingly
upheld to the said effect.

35. Having considered the aspect of conviction of the
Appellants, we shall now consider the sentence that
was awarded by the Trial Court and affirmed by the
High Court of Delhi as the senior Counsel for the
Appellants has raised the plea for reduction thereof.

36. Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants has prayed
for leniency with regard to the sentence imposed upon
them by the Courts below. To the effect of reduction of
sentence, reliance is placed on numerous decisions of
this Court whereby this Court has taken into account
the mitigating circumstances either for reducing the
sentence or affirming the reduction by the concerned
High Court. These being Hem Chand v. State of

Criminal Appeal Nos.5304 and 5303 of 2024 Page 16 of 20


12
Haryana , State of Punjab v. Manjit Singh and
13
Others , Bavo alias Manubhai Ambalal Thakore
14
v. State of Gujarat , Ramnaresh and Others v.
15
State of Chhattisgarh , and Yogendra alias
16
Jogendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh .

37. We have considered the decisions of this Court as
relied upon by the Appellants, apart from others. In
17
Jameel v. State of Uttar Pradesh this Court, while
referring to the decision in Gurmukh Singh v. State
18
of Haryana reiterated the relevant factors while
determining sentence of a convict. These include: (a)
motive or past enmity; (b) whether the act was
impulsive; (c) the accused’s intent or knowledge when
causing injury; (d) whether death was immediate or
occurred later; (e) the injury’s gravity and nature; (f)
the accused’s age and health; (g) if the injury arose in
a sudden fight without premeditation; (h) type and size
of weapon and force used; (i) accused’s criminal
history; (j) if death resulted from shock despite non-
fatal injury; (k) pending cases; (l) whether within
family; and (m) post-incident conduct.


12
1994 (6) SCC 727
13
2009 (14) SCC 31
14
2012 (2) SCC 684
15
2012 (4) SCC 257
16
2019 (9) SCC 243

17
(2010) 12 SCC 532
18
(2009) 15 SCC 635


Criminal Appeal Nos.5304 and 5303 of 2024 Page 17 of 20


38. We have perused the Order on Sentence dated
29.01.2020 passed by the Trial Court, which has been
brought on record by the Accused No.1. The Trial
Court has duly considered the circumstances
at-hand, including the mitigating and aggravating
circumstances for all the convicts.

39. As to the Appellants, the Trial Court observing that
they are a father-son duo, one being a retired army
personnel and the other an advocate respectively,
therefore, had aggravated their sentence resulting in
life imprisonment with fine. While on the other hand,
as to Accused No.3, the fact that he was 19 years old
at the time the incidence took place and observing that
he had a chance for reformation, the same was taken
as a mitigating factor leading to the lesser sentence
being imposed upon him i.e. 10 years with fine.

40. On that, the learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the
Accused No.1 has pleaded for parity with the Accused
No.3, who, while being convicted, was awarded the
sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years along
with fine of INR 50,000/- and in default or non-
payment of the said fine, simple imprisonment for six
months. The prayer is based on the similarity of their
role and involvement in the offence.


Criminal Appeal Nos.5304 and 5303 of 2024 Page 18 of 20


41. Senior Counsel has referred to I.A. No.209652 of 2023
where the Accused No.1 has filed his medical records.
It appears, therein, that he is about 73 years old and
even the Senior Medical Officer of Central Jail, Tihar
has mentioned for the Appellant to be considered as
“seriously sick patient” on 24.07.2023. He has
multiple ailments, namely, anaemia, PSVT, CAD,
Bronchial Asthma, Hypertension, BPH, CKD state-IV,
and Epididymo-orchitis with LUTS and therefore, we
are conscious of the said fact. He is also under
treatment from the Departments of Urology and
Nephrology at Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi.

42. 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. The Appellant-Accused No.1
(Hakim) is, thus, sentenced to rigorous imprisonment
for 10 years along with fine of INR 50,000/- and in
default or non-payment of the said fine, simple
imprisonment for six months.

43. 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).

Criminal Appeal Nos.5304 and 5303 of 2024 Page 19 of 20



44. 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.

45. In the light of the above, the Criminal Appeal No. 5304
of 2024 preferred by Accused No.1 is partly allowed as
mentioned above, while the Criminal Appeal No. 5303
of 2024 preferred by Accused No.2 stands dismissed.

46. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.


……...……….……………………..J.
[ ABHAY S. OKA ]


……..………..……………………..J.
[ AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ]


NEW DELHI;
MAY 19, 2025


Criminal Appeal Nos.5304 and 5303 of 2024 Page 20 of 20