Hostile witness testimony and chemical analysis confirming acid residues on clothing sustain conviction under Section 326A IPC.

The Appellant was convicted by the Trial Court for throwing acid on the victim on November 23, 2020, near a public toilet in Pune.

The victim, who had a prior relationship with the Appellant, was confronted by him after her marriage; he allegedly threatened to "break her pride" and threw liquid on her face, causing burn injuries.

During the trial, several prosecution witnesses, including the victim and her father, turned hostile.

However, the victim admitted the incident during cross-examination by the APP, and Chemical Analyzer (CA) reports detected nitrate ions on the Appellant’s clothes.

The Trial Court sentenced the Appellant to 10 years of imprisonment under Sections 326-A, 354-D, and 506 of the IPC, and Sections 10 and 12 of the POCSO Act.

1. Whether the testimony of a hostile witness can be relied upon to sustain a conviction if partially corroborated by other evidence.

2. Whether the conviction under the POCSO Act is sustainable in the absence of evidence of sexual intent.

3. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused under Section 326-A of the IPC beyond reasonable doubt despite the lack of evidence regarding the procurement of the acid.

The Court applied the settled legal principle regarding hostile witnesses, holding that the entire testimony of such a witness need not be discarded and remains admissible to the extent it is reliable.

The Court primarily applied Section 326-A of the IPC (Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid), which mandates a minimum sentence of 10 years.

Regarding the POCSO Act, the court interpreted Section 3, noting that the act must constitute a "sexual assault" with sexual intent to invoke the statute.

It further referenced the Indian Evidence Act concerning the burden of proof, noting that once the accused's presence and the presence of chemical residues on his clothes were established, the burden shifted to the accused to provide an explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

The Court reasoned that although the victim and other witnesses were declared hostile, the victim’s admissions during the APP’s cross-examination—specifically regarding the Appellant’s motive and his verbal threats—were credible.

The Court emphasized that the CA Report (Exh. 19 & 20) confirmed the presence of nitrate ions on the Appellant's clothes, which the Appellant failed to explain.

This scientific evidence, coupled with the Appellant’s admitted presence at the spot, ruled out the defense's theory that the victim’s husband committed the act.

The Court dismissed the argument that the failure to trace the source of the acid was fatal, as the oral and circumstantial evidence was overwhelming.

However, the Court found the POCSO conviction erroneous because throwing acid, while a heinous crime, did not meet the definition of "sexual assault" under Section 3 of the POCSO Act in this specific context.

However, it upheld the conviction and the 10-year minimum sentence under Section 326-A of the IPC, ruling that the prosecution had proved the acid attack beyond reasonable doubt.

The court declined to grant leniency or apply the Probation of Offenders Act given the serious nature of the offense and the statutory minimum sentence.

The appeal was dismissed regarding the IPC convictions.