Acid-attack convictions upheld for woman left severely disfigured; Orissa High Court orders concurrent sentences and enhanced victim compensation

On 18 April 2009, at approximately 7:15 p.m., the victim was returning from her aunt’s house with her cousin, P.W.7 Bhaskar Das, when the appellants allegedly approached them on a motorcycle.

Appellant Santosh allegedly demanded that the victim marry him and, upon her refusal, poured acid on her head and face before fleeing with appellant Anil.

The victim sustained extensive burns and permanent injuries to her face, scalp, ear, eyes, neck, chest and other parts of her body and underwent prolonged medical treatment.

An FIR was lodged on 4 May 2009, and the case was initially closed by a final report. It was reopened in 2017 after information supplied by the victim, following which the appellants were arrested and charge-sheeted.

The trial Court acquitted them of offences under Sections 328/506/34 IPC but convicted them under Sections 307/326/34 IPC.

Each appellant was sentenced to nine years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 307/34 IPC and five years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 326/34 IPC, with the sentences directed to run consecutively.

The appeals challenged the conviction and sentence; during hearing, the appellants principally sought modification of the consecutive sentences to concurrent sentences.

Whether the testimony of the injured victim, P.W.3, corroborated by the eyewitness P.W.7, the informant and the medical evidence, was sufficient to sustain the appellants’ convictions under Sections 307/326/34 IPC.

Whether the nature of the acid attack and the injuries established the requisite intention or knowledge for an offence under Section 307 IPC, and whether appellant Anil shared the common intention under Section 34 IPC.

Whether the substantive sentences under Sections 307/34 and 326/34 IPC, arising from the same occurrence, should run concurrently rather than consecutively under Section 31 Cr.P.C.

The Court applied Sections 307, 326 and 34 IPC: Section 307 requires proof of the requisite intention or knowledge to cause death; Section 326 concerns voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous means; and Section 34 attributes liability where a criminal act is done in furtherance of common intention.

The Court relied on the principle that the testimony of an injured witness ordinarily carries enhanced evidentiary value and should not be discarded absent compelling reasons, as recognised in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Man Singh, 2003 (3) Crimes 380 (SC), and Bijay Sankar Sindhe v. State of Maharashtra, 2008 (1) Crimes 216 (SC).

For sentencing, Section 31 Cr.P.C. confers discretion to direct sentences for multiple offences at one trial to run concurrently or consecutively, having regard to the nature of the offences and aggravating or mitigating circumstances; the Court relied on O.M. Cherian v. State of Kerala, (2015) 2 SCC 501, V.K. Bansal v. State of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 211, Mohd. Akhtar Hussain v. Collector of Customs, (1988) 4 SCC 183, Manoj v. State of Haryana, (2014) 2 SCC 153, and Sunil Kumar v. State of U.P., (2021) 5 SCC 560.

The Court also considered the reformative and rehabilitative principles of sentencing recognised in Mohd. Giasuddin v. State of A.P., (1977) 3 SCC 287, alongside the gravity of the offence and its impact on the victim.

Section 357 Cr.P.C. was applied for disbursement of the fine as compensation to the victim.

The Court found P.W.3’s evidence clear, consistent and materially intact despite extensive cross-examination.

Her status as the injured victim, the immediate disclosure to her mother, and the extensive injuries caused by the acid attack substantially corroborated her account.

P.W.7 provided a natural eyewitness account, identifying both appellants, describing their approach on the motorcycle, Santosh’s demand and act of pouring acid, and their subsequent flight.

His relationship with the victim was not, by itself, a ground for rejection where his evidence was cogent and corroborated.

The Court held that pouring acid on the victim’s head and face, coupled with the seriousness and extent of the injuries, permitted an inference of the intention or knowledge required under Section 307 IPC.

Although Santosh allegedly poured the acid, Anil’s presence as the motorcycle rider and his concerted conduct before and after the occurrence established participation in furtherance of common intention under Section 34 IPC.

However, for sentencing, the Court held that both offences arose from the same act and transaction and were based substantially on the same evidence.

Balancing the gravity of the acid attack and its devastating consequences against the appellants’ incarceration of more than eight years, it exercised its discretion under Section 31 Cr.P.C. to direct concurrent sentences.

The appeals were dismissed.

The substantive sentences of nine years under Section 307/34 IPC and five years under Section 326/34 IPC were directed to run concurrently instead of consecutively.

The fines were enhanced to ₹40,000 each under Section 307/34 IPC, with one year’s rigorous imprisonment in default, and ₹10,000 each under Section 326/34 IPC, with three months’ rigorous imprisonment in default.

The realised fine was directed to be disbursed to the victim as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C.