Circumstantial evidence and identification in light of lantern sufficient for conviction in acid attack case.

On September 13, 2015, at approximately 11:45 P.M., the victims—Soni Parveen and Afsari Parveen—were sleeping in their room when they were attacked with acid.

The informant (PW-3) observed two individuals, Md. Ahsan Alam and an absconding accused (Belal), fleeing the scene

The prosecution alleged that the motive was Soni’s refusal to marry Ahsan Alam

Both appellants were convicted by the Trial Court for offences including Section 326A (Acid Attack), 307 (Attempt to Murder), 458, and 354 of the IPC

The appeals challenge this conviction on grounds of lack of direct evidence, poor visibility at the time of the incident, and delayed implication of Md. Amir Hassan

1. Whether the circumstantial evidence presented is sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt

2. Whether the victims and witnesses could reliably identify the accused in the darkness of the room

3. Whether the conviction of Md. Amir Hassan is sustainable given his absence from the FIR and initial witness statements

The Court applied the five golden principles of circumstantial evidence established in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984), requiring that the chain of evidence be so complete as to exclude every hypothesis of innocence

Abdul Nassar v. State of Kerala (2025)

Regarding identification in low light, the Court relied on State of U.P. v. Hari Prasad (1974), Dina v. State of U.P. (1978), and State of U.P. v. Manohar Lal (1981), which hold that known persons can be identified by voice, gait, and features even in minimal light or via a lantern

The Court found the chain of circumstances against Md. Ahsan Alam complete. It established a clear motive (marriage proposal refusal), recent threats, and immediate identification by the victims who woke instantly upon receiving burns

The Court rejected the defense's argument regarding darkness, noting that a lantern was burning and the accused was well-known to the victims

Ahsan Alam's alibi (injury by an ox) was proven false by medical testimony (DW-6), and his immediate abscondance after the incident was noted as a further incriminating circumstance

However, regarding Md. Amir Hassan, the Court noted he was not named in the FIR or Section 161 CrPC statements, and was only implicated four months later in a Section 164 statement, creating reasonable doubt as to his involvement

The Court allowed the appeal of Md. Amir Hassan, granting him the benefit of doubt due to the delay and lack of initial identification, and ordered his immediate release

All sentences for Md. Ahsan Alam (u/s 326A, 307, 458, 354 IPC) shall run concurrently