Supreme Court
Emphasizing the strict interpretation of Section 326A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Supreme Court of India has rendered a major ruling in Hakim v. State of NCT of Delhi and Another, Criminal Appeals Nos. 5304 and 5303 of 2024. This decision is important not only because it supports the court system’s opposition to acid attacks but also because it clarifies legal processes and guidelines for appellate intervention in instances including concurrent conclusions. The Court maintained the accused’s conviction, explained the degree of sentence reduction in particular situations, and underlined the need of victim restitution.
Case Background
The case started with a horrific acid attack on a Mathural, Uttar Pradesh, woman on June 8, 2014. Three accused—Hakim (accused number one), Umesh (accused number two), and Gyani (accused number three)—intercepted the victim returning home from a temple visit near a railway crossing. Driven by retribution over an earlier grievance, the three carried out a premeditated attack. Umesh threw acid on the victim while Hakim and Gyani held her, resulting in extreme damage including 90% loss of eyesight in one eye and permanent facial disfiguredness.
Following FIR registration, the matter was moved to Delhi at complainant request. Under Section 326A read with Section 34 IPC, the Trial Court found all three guilty, sentenced Gyani ten years in prison and Hakim and Umesh life imprisonment. Delhi High Court maintained the convictions. Happy, Hakim and Umesh went to the Supreme Court asking for a sentence reduction and challenging the accuracy of the data.
For More Updates & Regular Notes Join Our Whats App Group (https://chat.whatsapp.com/DkucckgAEJbCtXwXr2yIt0) and Telegram Group ( https://t.me/legalmaestroeducators ) contact@legalmaestros.com.
Section 326A IPC: Legal Provisions Involved
Originally designed especially to handle acid assaults, Section 326A IPC was It specifies a minimum penalty of ten years, extendable to life, and levies a fee suitable to pay the victim’s medical costs. Under this part, a conviction calls for the prosecution to show that:
One utilized acid or a like corrosive agent.
The deed either permanently or partially damaged or distorted me.
The action was deliberate.
As it was interpreting this part, the Supreme Court underlined the gravity of acid assaults and the obligation of society to handle such crimes with severe punishment.
Basic Problems Thought About by the Court
The ruling of the Supreme Court concentrated on the following fundamental questions:
1. Was the conviction acquired under Section 326A justified?
The appellants claimed that either pre-existing or resulting from some other substance like hot water, the injuries were either They also cited delayed witness statements and procedural mistakes in evidence collecting. The Court judged these arguments unworkable, nonetheless. Several doctors attested to the fact that the injuries resulted from chemical burns, therefore verifying acid use. Supported the prosecution’s case were medical records, images from Aadhaar cards, and eyewitness reports.
2. Should the Supreme Court meddle with concurrent rulings?
Unless the conclusions are bizarre, legally defective, or based on no evidence, the Court underlined that it usually does not meddles in cases when both the Trial Court and the High Court have delivered consistent judgments. In this instance, both subordinate courts had carefully reviewed all the material and rendered logical decisions. The Supreme Court had no justification then to overturn the conviction.
3. Should the sentence be cut down?
The Supreme Court used its discretion mostly in this area. Citing his elderly age (73 years) and significant medical ailments, the Court lowered Hakim’s punishment from life imprisonment to ten years while affirming Umesh’s life sentence. Though Hakim helped with the deed, the Court took medical records and the fact that he was not the one pouring the acid under consideration.
The Court underlined that although Section 326A calls for life in prison, a smaller sentence is allowed in case of mitigating circumstances. It found balance in Hakim’s involvement with Gyani, who had previously been sentenced ten years, given their roles. Hakim’s sentence therefore was brought in line with Gyani’s.
4. Compensation for Victims
Victim recompense was another important factor. Since the crime happened in Uttar Pradesh, the High Court had correctly compelled the State to pay the victim at least ₹5,00,000 under the Uttar Pradesh Victim Compensation Scheme, 2014. Part of the fines paid by the offenders were also sent by the Trial Court straight to the victim.
Jurisprudential Revaluation
The ruling restates numerous generally accepted ideas in criminal law:
Article 136 Review: The Supreme Court will only meddle in special leave petitions in cases of obvious unfairness or major legal misreading.
Weight of Medical and Ocular Evidence: The Court underlined that, particularly in cases when consistent medical evidence exists, little discrepancies in witness testimony cannot undermine the whole prosecution.
The Court set penalty commensurate with degrees of involvement in the offense, separating between them. One could have valid reasons for lowering a sentence based on reformation, age, and health.
Respect for Standard Procedures but Not Rigidity: The Court decided that SOPs are guiding aids rather than required even if the appellants claimed the police did not follow them in acid attack situations. The procedures of inquiry and testing turned out to be equitable and fair otherwise.
This Supreme Court ruling is a crucial restiter of India’s will to fight gender-based violence, particularly including acid attacks. It shows a delicate mix between respecting the law and taking human elements as age, health, and degree of personal participation into account. The Court strongly held the main offender responsible even though one accused was given pity for humanitarian reasons. It also guaranteed the victim dignity and reparation by means of a fair and sympathetic court procedure.
Maintaining the conviction and stressing victim-centric justice helps the court to build public confidence in it. It makes clear that acid attacks will be punished harshly, but the legal system will also show compassion where it is justified. Under Article 136 of the Constitution, this case will become a precedent for next trials concerning Section 326A IPC and appellate review.
