The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of two appellants under Section 326A IPC for an acid attack, affirming the High Court’s ruling. While maintaining life imprisonment for the advocate (Accused No.2), it reduced the sentence of the elderly co-accused (Accused No.1) to 10 years, considering his age and health. The Court reiterated that concurrent findings of fact require no interference unless perverse or legally flawed, emphasizing strict scrutiny in acid attack cases. Procedural lapses in investigation were deemed non-fatal, and medical evidence conclusively established the victim’s injuries. The judgment underscores parity in sentencing while balancing aggravating and mitigating factors.
Facts Of The Case:
On June 8, 2014, at approximately 8:00 PM near Govind Nagar railway crossing in Mathura, Uttar Pradesh, the victim (PW-4) was returning from a temple with her sister-in-law Rajjo Devi (PW-6). The appellants Hakim (Accused No.1), Umesh (Accused No.2), and co-accused Gyani (Accused No.3) intercepted her to retaliate for a prior police complaint. Hakim and Gyani restrained the victim while Umesh poured acid on her, causing severe chemical burns and permanent disfigurement, including 90% vision loss in her left eye. The victim’s screams alerted Rajjo Devi, who rushed her to the hospital. An FIR (No.130/2014) was lodged the same night by the victim’s husband Bablu. After transfer of the trial to Delhi upon the victim’s request, the Additional Sessions Judge (2020) convicted all three under Section 326A read with 34 IPC, sentencing Hakim and Umesh to life imprisonment with a ₹1 lakh fine, and Gyani to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment. The Delhi High Court (2022) upheld the convictions and sentences for Hakim and Umesh but reduced Gyani’s sentence. In 2025, the Supreme Court maintained Umesh’s life term but reduced Hakim’s sentence to 10 years due to his advanced age (73), critical health conditions, and lesser direct role, while dismissing his appeal against conviction
Procedural History:
The case originated with the registration of FIR No. 130/2014 at Govind Nagar Police Station, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh, on June 8, 2014. After investigation, charges were framed under Section 326A read with 34 IPC. The trial commenced at the Mathura District and Sessions Court but was transferred to Delhi’s Patiala House Courts in 2015 following the victim’s petition to the Supreme Court (Transfer Petition (Crl.) No. 176/2015). In 2020, the Additional Sessions Judge convicted all three accused, sentencing Hakim (A1) and Umesh (A2) to life imprisonment with a ₹1 lakh fine, and Gyani (A3) to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment. The Delhi High Court, in 2022, upheld the convictions and sentences of A1 and A2 but reduced A3’s sentence to 10 years while directing enhanced victim compensation. In 2024, the Supreme Court (Criminal Appeal Nos. 5304 & 5303/2024) granted leave to appeal after condoning delays in special leave petitions. It affirmed all convictions but reduced Hakim’s sentence to 10 years (aligning with A3) due to age (73) and critical health, while dismissing Umesh’s appeal against his life term. The final judgment was delivered on May 19, 2025.
ALSO READ : Supreme Court Directs Uniform Rules for Court Managers: Mandates Better Pay & Service Conditions for Court Managers
Court Observation:
The Court affirmed that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts warrant no interference unless proven perverse, irrational, or legally flawed, reiterating strict jurisdictional limits under Article 136 of the Constitution. It upheld the conviction under Section 326A IPC, rejecting defense claims about the victim’s eye injury by relying on consistent medical evidence from seven doctors and pre-incident photographic proof. The absence of recovered acid was deemed immaterial given the nature of the crime and corroborative testimonies. Minor discrepancies in witness statements (PW-4/PW-6) were dismissed as non-fatal, noting threats forced the family to flee Mathura temporarily. Non-compliance with acid attack SOPs was ruled procedural, not mandatory. While maintaining life imprisonment for Umesh (advocate) for betraying professional ethics, Hakim’s sentence was reduced to 10 years considering his age (73), critical health, and lesser direct role—establishing parity with co-accused Gyani but emphasizing individualized sentencing based on aggravating/mitigating factors under established precedents.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court partially allowed Criminal Appeal No. 5304/2024 filed by Hakim (Accused No.1) while dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 5303/2024 filed by Umesh (Accused No.2). It upheld the conviction of both appellants under Section 326A read with 34 IPC for the acid attack. The Court maintained Umesh’s life imprisonment and ₹1 lakh fine imposed by the trial court, citing his direct role in pouring acid and betrayal of his duty as an advocate. However, Hakim’s sentence was reduced from life imprisonment to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment with a reduced fine of ₹50,000/- (default: 6 months’ simple imprisonment), considering his advanced age (73 years), critical health conditions (CKD, heart disease), and comparatively lesser role in restraining (not pouring acid). The Court aligned Hakim’s sentence with co-accused Gyani’s punishment for parity but emphasized individualized sentencing. All fines were directed to contribute to victim compensation. The convictions and sentences were affirmed as legally sound, and pending applications stood disposed.
Case Details:
Case Title: Hakim vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. Citation:2025 INSC 728 Criminal Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 5304 of 2024 (Hakim) With Connected Matters Date of Judgment:May 19, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay S. Oka & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih
Download The Judgement Here