HAKIM versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.

HAKIM versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.

Concurrent findings of conviction under Section 326A IPC read with Section 34 were upheld because ocular testimony and consistent medical evidence established serious chemical burns and near-total loss of vision attributable to a chemical attack; absence of recovery of the substance or its source did not negate conviction where recovery was impracticable and medical/photographic evidence corroborated burns; Supreme Court will not reappraise evidence under Article 136 absent perversity or legal/procedural infirmity; sentence of Accused No.1 reduced to 10 years due to age, serious ailments and role, while sentence of Accused No.2 (an advocate) was affirmed.

Parties
Appellant (accused No.1): Hakim; Appellant (accused No.2): Umesh; Respondent (state): State of NCT of Delhi; Respondent (victim): Respondent-Victim
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
18 May 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment of the Supreme Court on Appeal (art.136 SLP Converted to Appeal)
Outcome
Criminal Appeal No. 5304 of 2024 partly allowed; Criminal Appeal No. 5303 of 2024 dismissed.
Legal Topics
Voluntarily Causing Grievous Hurt by Using Acid or Corrosive Substances, Pouring of Acid, Sentencing, Interference Under Article 136 of the Constitution, Evidence Appreciation, Medical and Ocular Evidence, Standard Operating Procedure in Investigation
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Voluntarily Causing Grievous Hurt by Using Acid or Corrosive Substances Pouring of Acid Sentencing Interference Under Article 136 of the Constitution Evidence Appreciation Medical and Ocular Evidence +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hakim

Appellant (accused No.1)

Umesh

Appellant (accused No.2)

State of NCT of Delhi

Respondent (state)

Respondent-Victim

Respondent (victim)

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment of the Supreme Court on Appeal (art.136 SLP Converted to Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution proved on evidence that the injuries including loss of vision were caused by pouring of an acid/chemical attracting Section 326A IPC read with Section 34
  2. 2 Whether the Supreme Court should interfere with concurrent findings of guilt under Article 136 when lower courts have returned concurrent findings based on evidence
  3. 3 Whether sentence should be reduced for mitigating factors (age, health, role) in respect of Accused No.1

Ratio Decidendi

Concurrent findings of conviction under Section 326A IPC read with Section 34 were upheld because ocular testimony and consistent medical evidence established serious chemical burns and near-total loss of vision attributable to a chemical attack; absence of recovery of the substance or its source did not negate conviction where recovery was impracticable and medical/photographic evidence corroborated burns; Supreme Court will not reappraise evidence under Article 136 absent perversity or legal/procedural infirmity; sentence of Accused No.1 reduced to 10 years due to age, serious ailments and role, while sentence of Accused No.2 (an advocate) was affirmed.

Court Disposition

Criminal Appeal No. 5304 of 2024 partly allowed; Criminal Appeal No. 5303 of 2024 dismissed.

Orders

  • Convictions of Accused No.1 (Hakim) and Accused No.2 (Umesh) under Section 326A IPC r/w Section 34 are upheld.
  • Sentence of Accused No.1 (Hakim) modified to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine of INR 50,000 and in default simple imprisonment for six months; Trial Court order on sentence dated 29.01.2020 modified accordingly.