LexHAKIM versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 27 : 2025 INSC 728 Hakim v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 5304 of 2024) 19 May 2025 [Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration These instant two appeals assail concurrent findings of conviction u/s.326A of the Penal Code, 1860 and sentence thereof against accused no.1 and accused no.2 respectively appellants herein. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.326A r/w. s.34 – It was alleged that three accused persons including both the appellants herein blocked the way of respondent-victim – Accused no.1-appellant and accused no.3 held the respondent-victim while accused no.2-appellant, poured acid over her and then ran away from the spot – Trial Court convicted all the accused persons – Both the appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- – Accused no.3 was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs.50,000/- – The decision on conviction of both the appellants was affirmed by the High Court – Appellants filed SLP – Appellants contended that the prosecution has failed to establish that the claimed eye injury was result of pouring of acid on the respondent-victim and the prosecution also failed to show the source of procurement of the said substance: Held: As per the evidence led by the prosecution, different Doctors appeared as prosecution witnesses who had treated the victim on various occasions i.e., PW-5, PW-8, PW-9, PW-10, PW-11, PW-12 and PW-14 – All of them have testified that the injuries on the skin and the deformity of the face, including loss of vision, albeit not fully i.e., 90% in the left eye of the respondent-victim were the result of serious Chemical Burn injuries – Therefore, this plea of the appellants fails – The question of the nature and contents of the alleged substance used and thrown on the victim would not arise * Author 28 [2025] 7 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports as the possibility of recovery of the same does not arise as the incident was committed at railway crossing adjacent to the railway line where all the accused ran away after committing the offence – However, chemical burns on the person of the respondent-victim are substantiated from testimonies and medical evidence – This ground also fails – As far a sentence is concerned, considering the role in the offence, age and ailments being suffered by the appellant-accused no.1, this Court is inclined to interfere and reduce the sentence and bring it at par with the sentence awarded to the accused no.3 for his role in holding the respondent-victim – The appellant-accused no.1 is, thus, sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years along with fine of Rs.50,000/- – As regards the appellant-accused no.2, it is observed that being an advocate, he was not only well read in law but owed a duty to the court being its officer requiring him to conduct with dignity, respect law and fellow beings – Having let down the community as a whole, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the sentence awarded to him vide the Trial Court Judgment, as affirmed by the Impugned Judgment. [Paras 26, 27, 42, 44] Constitution of India – Art.136 – Scope and ambit of interference of this Court in a criminal appeal arising out of a Special Leave to Appeal Petition, where concurrent findings have been returned by the Courts below – Discussed. [Paras 12 and 13] Sentencing – Relevant factors while determining sentence of a convict – Discussed. [Para 37] Case Law Cited Mst Dalbir Kaur and Others v. State of Punjab [1977] 1 SCR 280 : (1976) 4 SCC 158; Pritam Singh v. State [1950] 1 SCR 453 : (1950) SCC 189; Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat [1983] 3 SCR 28 : (1983) 3 SCC 217; Murugan v. State of Tamil Nadu [2018] 5 SCR 677 : (2018) 16 SCC 96; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Wasif Haider and Others [2018] 14 SCR 1161 : (2019) 2 SCC 303; Kailash Gour and Others v. State of Assam [2011] 16 SCR 318 : (2012) 2 SCC 34; Sunil Kundu and Another v. State of Jharkhand [2013] 5 SCR 924 : (2013) 4 SCC 422; Karan Singh v. State of Haryana and Another [2013] 5 SCR 1166 : (2013) 12 SCC 529; Dayal Singh and Others v. State of Uttaranchal [2012] 10 SCR 157 : (2012) 8 SCC 263; Shahid Khan v. State of Rajasthan [2016] 2 SCR 284 : (2016) 4 SCC 96; [2025] 7 S.C.R. 29 Hakim v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr. Vijaybhai Bhanabhai Patel v. Navnitbhai Nathubhai Patel and Others Noor Aga v. State of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.