Acid Attack Immediate And Proximate Cause Of Death: Allahabad High Court Upholds Conviction In Double Fatal Assault

“Delay In FIR Natural When Priority Is To Save Lives” – In a significant judgment addressing the evidentiary standards in acid attack prosecutions and the scope of appellate sentencing powers, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad upheld the conviction of the appellant under Sections 304, 326-A and 452 IPC for pouring sulphuric acid on two women, resulting in their deaths.

While affirming the findings of guilt recorded by the Trial Court, the Division Bench of Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J. and Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, J. modified the sentence of life imprisonment to a fixed term of fourteen years’ rigorous imprisonment, exercising constitutional appellate powers in light of the principles laid down in V. Sriharan and Shiva Kumar.

The appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. arose from a conviction dated 30.08.2018 by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Pratapgarh, whereby the appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment under Sections 304 and 326-A IPC and two years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 452 IPC for a midnight acid attack that led to the deaths of Phoolan Devi and Suman Devi.

The core issues before the High Court were whether the prosecution had proved the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt in a case based primarily on related eyewitness testimony, and whether the life sentence warranted modification.

The incident occurred in the intervening night of 07/08 May 2014 at about 2:00 AM. The informant, Dinesh Verma (P.W.-1), sleeping in a thatched shed outside his house, rushed inside upon hearing screams and allegedly saw the appellant pouring a liquid substance on his mother and sister-in-law. Both victims sustained extensive acid burn injuries and were referred from local hospitals to S.R.N. Hospital, Allahabad, where they eventually succumbed to septicaemic shock on 22.05.2014 and 29.05.2014 respectively.

Initially registered under Sections 452, 326-A and 323 IPC, the case was converted to Section 304 IPC after the deaths. The Trial Court convicted the appellant but acquitted him under Section 323 IPC.

“Septicaemia Direct Consequence Of Deep Acid Burns”

The defence argued that the deaths occurred due to septicaemia arising from inadequate medical treatment and not directly due to the acid attack.

Rejecting this contention, the High Court observed that both post-mortem reports unequivocally recorded “septicaemic shock” due to “ante mortem deep burn injury.” The Court noted:

“In this case acid burn injuries is the immediate cause of septicaemia. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the said argument.”

The medical evidence demonstrated extensive burns on vital parts including face, chest, neck, lungs and eyes. The Court held that the acid attack was the immediate and proximate cause of death, sustaining the conviction under Section 304 IPC.

“Delay In Lodging FIR Not Fatal – Saving Lives Comes First”

The FIR was lodged on 09.05.2014, nearly two days after the incident. The defence alleged concoction and consultation with a lawyer.

The Court, however, found the delay sufficiently explained. Both victims were being shifted between hospitals due to critical burn injuries.

Quoting settled Supreme Court jurisprudence, the Bench held:

“Providing of medical aid is and must be the step before lodging a F.I.R. in all such cases of acid attack… and such delay ought to be construed as common and natural.”

The Court emphasized that law does not prescribe a mathematical formula for promptness and that delay is not fatal absent evidence of embellishment.

“Quality Of Evidence Prevails Over Quantity” – Related Witness Testimony Upheld

The prosecution case rested primarily on P.W.-1 and P.W.-2, both sons of one deceased and related to the other. The defence argued that they were interested witnesses and that discrepancies regarding source of light and village details rendered identification doubtful.

The Court rejected this argument, reiterating Section 134 of the Evidence Act and the principle laid down in Masalti v. State of U.P. that related testimony cannot be discarded merely due to relationship.

It observed:

“It is the quality of evidence, which is important and not its quantity.”

Minor inconsistencies about the source of light were held immaterial. The appellant was known to the witnesses and had previously visited the house. No material contradiction was elicited in cross-examination.

“Defective Investigation Does Not Enure To Benefit Of Accused”

The defence pointed to lapses such as non-preparation of torch report, absence of dying declaration and certain omissions in case diary.

Relying on Edakkandi Dineshan and Paras Yadav, the Court reiterated:

“On the account of defective investigation the benefit will not inure to the accused persons on that ground alone.”

The ocular testimony, corroborated by medical reports and forensic confirmation of sulphuric acid in seized articles, was sufficient to sustain conviction.

Sentencing: Life Imprisonment Reduced To Fixed Term Of 14 Years

While upholding conviction, the Court examined whether life imprisonment should be modified.

The Bench referred extensively to the Constitution Bench decision in Union of India v. V. Sriharan and subsequent rulings including Shiva Kumar v. State of Karnataka, reiterating that High Courts possess power to impose a fixed term exceeding fourteen years in appropriate cases.

The Court acknowledged the heinous nature of acid attacks and their societal impact but balanced it with factors such as:

“Appellant is in Jail for about 13 years 09 months and 24 days… There is no criminal history… He has a wife and a son to support.”

Striking a balance between societal interest and reformative justice, the Court modified the life sentence to fourteen years’ rigorous imprisonment, while maintaining fines and other sentences.

The Allahabad High Court’s ruling reinforces three vital criminal law principles: first, that acid burn injuries leading to septicaemia establish proximate causation for culpable homicide; second, that delay in FIR is not fatal where medical treatment justifiably takes precedence; and third, that appellate courts retain constitutional authority to substitute life imprisonment with a fixed term exceeding fourteen years.

The appeal was partly allowed. Conviction under Sections 304, 326-A and 452 IPC was upheld. Life imprisonment was reduced to fourteen years’ rigorous imprisonment, with benefits under Sections 427 and 428 Cr.P.C.

Date of Decision: 12/02/2026