Patna High Court

Anand Prasad YadavversusThe State Of Bihar

Decided: 23 June 2026
Disposal: PARTLY ALLOWED (DISPOSAL)
Bench: PURNENDU SINGH

Holding

The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the appellant’s identity as the perpetrator beyond reasonable doubt, and therefore quashed the conviction under Section 324 IPC.

Summary

The appellant, Anand Prasad Yadav, was convicted by the Sessions Court under Section 324 of the IPC for allegedly throwing acid on four victims during a land dispute. On appeal, the High Court examined the testimony of seven prosecution witnesses, most of whom were injured parties or relatives, and noted the absence of any independent eyewitness or identification parade. The Court found that the key witnesses' accounts were hearsay and that the medical evidence, while confirming acid burns, did not identify the assailant. It held that the prosecution had not discharged the burden of proving the appellant’s participation beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the conviction under Section 324 IPC was set aside and the appellant was acquitted.

Issues considered

The prosecution proved the appellant’s identity beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction under Section 324 IPC.
Whether the offence should have been framed under Section 326/326A/326B IPC or Section 307 IPC instead of Section 324.
Whether the trial court erred in relying on hearsay and related witnesses without an independent identification parade.
Whether the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, can be applied retrospectively to an offence committed in 2010.

Legislation cited

Criminal Law Amendment Act — s. 2013
Criminal Procedure Code — s. 313
Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 324, 326, 326A, 326B

Subjects

acid attack
Section 324 IPC
reasonable doubt
identification of accused
hearsay evidence
land dispute
criminal appeal
conviction quashed

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.195 of 2014

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-39 Year-2010 Thana- GAUNAHA District- West Champaran

======================================================
Anand Prasad Yadav Son of Late Ram Laxman Prasad Yadav Resident of
village- Belwa Bahuyari, P.S.- Gaunaha, District- West Champaran

... ... Appellant/s

Versus

The State Of Bihar

... ... Respondent/s

======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Akhileshwar Kumar Shrivastva, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. S.N. Prasad, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH

C.A.V JUDGMENT

Date : 23-06-2026

Heard Mr. Akhileshwar Kumar Shrivastva, learned

counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.N. Prasad, learned APP for

the State.

2. The appellant has preferred the present criminal

appeal against the judgment and order of sentence dated

31.03.2014 passed in S.Tr. No. 515 of 2010 (arising out of

Gaunaha P.S. Case No. 39/2010) by learned Adhoc Addl.

Sessions Judge, IIIrd, Bettiah, West Champaran, whereby, the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.195 of 2014 dt.23-06-2026
2/27

learned trial court has acquitted the appellant under Section 307

of the Indian Penal Code and has convicted the appellant under

Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to

undergo Imprisonment for one year and six months.

3. The appellant have assailed the impugned judgment

primarily on the ground that the learned trial court has failed to

appreciate the evidence available on record in its proper

perspective and has erred in recording the conviction of the

appellant.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

4. The prosecution case, as unfolded in the fardbeyan,

is that on 01.07.2010 at about 10:00 p.m., the informant was

sitting in his house with his family members when a hole of

approximately one foot in length and width suddenly appeared

in the western wall of the house. The informant suspected that

his neighbour, Anand Prasad Yadav, with whom there was a

long-standing land dispute, was breaking the wall. The

informant directed his nephew, Digvijay Yadav, to ascertain who

was causing the damage. It is alleged that as soon as Digvijay

Yadav approached the wall, Anand Prasad Yadav threw acid

upon him, causing burn injuries on various parts of his body.

Upon hearing the cries of Digvijay Yadav, the informant's wife,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.195 of 2014 dt.23-06-2026
3/27

Sharda Devi, daughter Pinky Kumari, and granddaughter Bunty

Kumari rushed to the spot. The accused allegedly threw acid

upon them as well, resulting in burn injuries to all four victims,

namely Digvijay Yadav, Sharda Devi, Pinky Kumari, and Bunty

Kumari.

5. It has further been alleged that the occurrence was

motivated by previous land disputes between the parties and that

the accused had intentionally caused injuries to the victims by

throwing acid. On the basis of the fardbeyan, an FIR was

registered against the accused persons under Sections 326 and

307 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, the police

submitted charge-sheet against the accused under Sections 324

and 307 IPC, whereupon cognizance was taken and the case was

ultimately committed to the Court of Sessions for trial leading to

the conviction of the sole appellant.

ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant

submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order

of sentence are bad in law and on facts and are liable to be set

aside. He contended that the prosecution has failed to prove the

charge beyond reasonable doubt and that the entire case rests

upon mere suspicion arising out of previous land disputes
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.195 of 2014 dt.23-06-2026
4/27

between the parties, who admittedly are pattidars. The informant

himself admitted that he suspected the appellant because of the

existing enmity. It is further submitted that there are material

contradictions and inconsistencies in the prosecution case. As

per the FIR the allegation is that the occurrence had taken place

on 4:00 P.M., while P.W. 2 stated that it occurred at 4:30 P.M.

The manner of occurrence narrated by P.W. 2 is also at variance

with the prosecution story set out in the fardbeyan. P.W. 1 is

admittedly a hearsay witness who did not witness the

occurrence and came to learn about it only from the injured

persons. He further admitted that the hole in the wall was

situated only a few inches above the surface, making the

prosecution story of throwing acid through the hole highly

improbable. In course of trial, the P.W. 2 made admission during

his cross-examination that he did not witness the acid being

thrown upon the other alleged victims and that there were

inconsistencies regarding the position and height of the hole in

the wall.

7. Learned counsel further submitted that the

Investigating Officer was not examined by the prosecution,

thereby, depriving the defence of an effective opportunity to

prove contradictions and omissions in the statements of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.195 of 2014 dt.23-06-2026
5/27

prosecution witnesses and causing serious prejudice to the

appellant. It was also submitted that no independent witness was

examined, despite the alleged occurrence having taken place in

a residential locality and that all the material witnesses are

closely related to the informant. The defence, on the other hand,

produced documentary evidence relating to prior civil disputes

between the parties, establishing the existence of long-standing

enmity and a motive for false implication. In the absence of any

recovery of acid, chemical examination report, or any

independent evidence connecting the appellant with the alleged

occurrence. He submitted that the prosecution has failed to

establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. On the basis of the

above facts and circumstances, learned counsel submitted that

the conviction of the appellant under Section 324 of the Indian

Penal Code is unsustainable and the appellant deserves to be

acquitted by extending to him the benefit of doubt.

ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE STATE

8. Per Contra, learned APP appearing for the State while

opposing the appeal submitted that the learned District court,

after considering all the evidences on record and exhibits

submitted on behalf of the parties during the course of trial has

erred no mistake in convicting the appellant for the offences
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.195 of 2014 dt.23-06-2026
6/27

under Section 324 IPC.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

9. Heard the parties.

10. I have perused the lower court records and the

evidence collected in the course of trial, proceedings and have

also taken note of the arguments canvassed by learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the parties.

11. With reference to the aforesaid rival legal

contention urged on behalf of the parties, I have carefully

examined the case to find out whether the impugned judgment

warrants interference by this Court on the charge levelled

against the accused/appellant under Sections 324 of IPC.

12. During the trial, the prosecution has examined

altogether eight witnesses, namely:

(i). P.W.1 – Anil Upadhyay

(ii). P.W.2 – Digvijay Yadav

(iii). P.W.3 – Santosh Upadhyay

(iv). P.W.4 – Pinki Kumari

(v). P.W.5 – Baliram Prasad Yadav (Informant)

(vi). P.W.6 – Sharda Devi

(vii). P.W.7– Md. Amanullah (Doctor)
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.195 of 2014 dt.23-06-2026
7/27

13. The prosecution has also relied upon following

documents exhibited during the course of trial:

(i) (Exhibit-1) - Fardbeyan

(ii) Exhibits 2 to 2/C- Injury Reports

14. From the perusal of records, I proceed to analyse

the statements of the prosecution witnesses whether they have

supported the prosecution case.

PW-1 : Anil Upadhyay - PW-1 deposed that on the

date of occurrence he heard commotion coming from the house

of Baliram Yadav and rushed towards the place of occurrence.

He saw Digvijay Yadav, Pinky Kumari, Bunty Kumari and

Sharda Devi coming out while shouting in pain. He noticed that

their bodies had been affected by acid burns. According to him,

when he inquired from the injured persons, they informed him

that Anand Yadav had thrown acid upon them through a hole

made in the wall.

In cross-examination, PW-1 admitted that he had not

personally seen the accused throwing acid and that his

knowledge regarding the assailant was based upon what had

been narrated to him by the injured persons. However, he stated

that he had seen burn injuries on the victims, a hole in the wall

and signs of damage at the place of occurrence. The trial court
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.195 of 2014 dt.23-06-2026
8/27

treated his evidence as corroborative in nature.

PW-2 : Digvijay Yadav (Injured Witness)- PW-2 is

one of the injured victims and an eyewitness to the occurrence.

He stated that upon hearing sounds near the wall, he went

towards the room of his elder mother and found that the wall

had been damaged. On questioning Anand Yadav as to why he

was breaking the wall, the accused allegedly threatened him and

immediately threw acid upon him from a steel glass/container.

As a result, he sustained burn injuries and ran towards the door

of the house. Thereafter, he informed Gopi Yadav that acid had

been thrown upon him.

He further deposed that acid was also thrown upon

Pinky Kumari, Bunty Kumari and Sharda Devi, causing burn

injuries to them as well. In cross-examination, he maintained

that he had seen the accused standing near the damaged wall

and had personally witnessed the accused throwing acid. He

stated that after the acid attack he immediately washed himself

with water. The trial court found no material contradiction in his

testimony and relied upon his evidence

PW-3 : Santosh Upadhyay- P.W. 3, Santosh

Upadhyay, deposed that the occurrence had taken place about

one year and four months prior to his deposition at about 4:00
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.195 of 2014 dt.23-06-2026
9/27

P.M. While he was at his house, he heard a commotion and

proceeded towards the place of occurrence. There, he found

Digvijay Yadav and other injured persons washing themselves

with water. He noticed that acid had fallen on the body of

Digvijay Yadav, causing blisters and burn injuries. He further

stated that acid had also fallen upon Bunty and other members

of the family. According to the witness, upon making inquiries,

he was informed that Anand Yadav had thrown acid upon them,

resulting in the injuries.

In his cross-examination, the witness stated that there

was a hand pump situated to the south of his house where he

saw the injured persons washing themselves. He remained there

for about 15–20 minutes and noticed blisters on their bodies.

However, the witness admittedly did not witness the actual

occurrence or see the accused throwing acid upon the injured

persons. His evidence is, therefore, not that of an eyewitness to

the occurrence, but it corroborates the prosecution case to the

extent that immediately after the incident he saw the injured

persons suffering from burn injuries and blisters consistent with

acid burns.

PW-4 : Pinky Kumari (Injured Witness)PW-4 is one

of the injured victims. She supported the prosecution case and
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.195 of 2014 dt.23-06-2026
10/27

stated that acid was thrown upon her by the accused, resulting in

burn injuries. Her testimony was treated by the trial court as

corroborating the version of PW-2 and other injured witnesses.

PW-5 : Anand Prasad Yadav- The informant of the

case, deposed that on 01.07.2010 at about 4:00 P.M., while he

was sitting in the courtyard of his house with family members,

he heard a sound of the western wall of a room breaking. Upon

his inquiry, his nephew Digvijay went to the spot and

immediately returned shouting. When the witness rushed there,

he found Digvijay with burn injuries on his body. Digvijay

informed him that there was a hole in the wall and that Anand

Prasad Yadav was sitting on the other side and throwing a water-

like liquid from a steel glass, causing burns. The witness further

stated that his wife Sharda Devi, daughter Pinky Kumari and

granddaughter Bunty also came out screaming and disclosed

that Anand Yadav was throwing acid through the hole. He

noticed burn injuries on Sharda Devi, Pinky Kumari and

Digvijay Yadav and thereafter arranged for their treatment at the

hospital. Though P.W. 5 admittedly did not witness the actual

act of throwing acid, he immediately reached the place of

occurrence, saw the injured persons in a burnt condition and

narrated the facts disclosed to him by the injured persons. He
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.195 of 2014 dt.23-06-2026
11/27

also proved the written report lodged by him before the police.

P.W. 6, Sharda Devi, an injured witness, stated that at

about 4:30 P.M. on the day of occurrence she was present in the

courtyard of her house when a sound of the wall breaking was

heard. On being asked to see what had happened, Digvijay went

towards the spot and soon returned shouting that Anand Yadav

had thrown acid upon him. Thereafter, she, along with her

daughter Pinky Kumari, Kaushalya Devi and granddaughter

Bunty, proceeded towards the place of occurrence. According to

her, Anand Yadav then started throwing acid upon them through

the hole in the wall with the aid of a steel glass, causing burn

injuries to her and the others. She specifically stated that Pinky

sustained burns and that the acid also damaged the clothes and

articles which came in contact with it. The witness further

deposed that her husband subsequently took the injured persons

to the hospital for treatment. During cross-examination, she

remained firm and reiterated that she had seen the acid being

thrown through the hole in the wall and had identified the

accused as the person responsible. Being an injured witness, her

testimony directly supported the prosecution case regarding the

manner of occurrence and the participation of the accused in the

acid attack.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.195 of 2014 dt.23-06-2026
12/27

PW-7 : Dr. Md. Amanullah (Medical Witness) PW-7

was the doctor who medically examined the injured persons and

prepared the injury reports marked as Exhibits 2 to 2/C. His

evidence was relied upon by the prosecution to establish the

nature and existence of burn injuries sustained by the victims.

The medical evidence was considered by the trial court to be

corroborative of the ocular version of the injured witnesses.

15. On the basis of materials surfaced during the

trial, the appellant/accused was examined under Section 313 of

the Cr.PC by putting incriminating circumstances/evidences

surfaced against him, which he denied and showed his complete

innocence.

The question for determination which falls for

consideration is, as to whether, the trial court erred in

convicting the appellant under Section 324 IPC and not for

the offence committed under Section 326 of IPC?

16. In the background of allegation of acid attack, it

would be appropriate to reproduce the provisions of Section 324

vis-a-vis Section 326, 326A and 326B of the I.P.C. for the sake

of convenience and better understanding of the facts, the

essential ingredients of Section 324 IPC, voluntarily causing

"hurt" by dangerous weapon or means as defined under Section
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.195 of 2014 dt.23-06-2026
13/27

319 IPC., which is inter alia reproduced as under:

"319. Hurt- Whoever causes bodily pain,
disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt."
324. Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous
weapons or means.—
Whoever, except in the case provided for by
section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any
instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any
instrument which, used as weapon of offence, is likely to
cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or
by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by
means of any explosive substance or by means of any
substance which it is deleterious to the human body to
inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means
of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to three
years, or with fine, or with both.”

17. It is apparent that acid is a heated substance

and cause burn injury. Therefore, has the prosecution must

proved both i.e. voluntary causing of hurt and use of a

dangerous weapon or means.

18. The Legislature, taking cognizance of the

alarming rise in incidents of acid attacks and the grave physical,

psychological, and social consequences suffered by victims,

introduced Section 326A and 326B of the Indian Penal Code

through the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013. The object

and purpose behind the insertion of this provision was to

specifically recognize acid attacks as a distinct and aggravated

form of violence warranting separate treatment under criminal

law. Prior to the enactment of Section 326A and 326B, such
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.195 of 2014 dt.23-06-2026
14/27

offences were ordinarily prosecuted under Section 326 IPC,

which did not adequately account for the peculiar nature of acid

attacks, the irreversible disfigurement and permanent injuries

inflicted upon victims, or the necessity of imposing stringent

punishment and ensuring adequate compensation. The

legislative intervention was, therefore, intended to address these

deficiencies, enhance deterrence, and provide a more effective

legal framework for the protection and rehabilitation of acid

attack survivors.

19. Section 326 of the IPC is reproduced as under:

"326. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by
dangerous weapons or means—
Whoever, except in the case provided for by
section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt by means of
any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any
instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to
cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or
by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by
means of any explosive substance, or by means of any
substance which it is deleterious to the human body to
inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means
of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life,
or with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."

20. Section 326A and 326B of the IPC are

reproduced as under:

"326A. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt
by use of acid, etc.—
Whoever causes permanent or partial
damage or deformity to, or burns or maims or
disfigures or disables, any part or parts of the body of
a person or causes grievous hurt by throwing acid on
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.195 of 2014 dt.23-06-2026
15/27

or by administering acid to that person, or by using
any other means with the intention of causing or with
the knowledge that he is likely to cause such injury or
hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which shall not be less than ten
years but which may extend to imprisonment for life,
and with fine:Provided that such fine shall be just and
reasonable to meet the medical expenses of the
treatment of the victim;Provided further that any fine
imposed under this section shall be paid to the victim.
326B. Voluntarily throwing or attempting
to throw acid —
Whoever throws or attempts to throw
acid on any person or attempts to administer acid to
any person, or attempts to use any other means, with
the intention of causing permanent or partial damage
or deformity or burns or maiming or disfigurement or
disability or grievous hurt to that person, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which shall not be less than five years but which
may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to
fine.
Explanation 1.— For the purposes of
section 326A and this section, "acid" includes any
substance which has acidic or corrosive character or
burning nature, that is capable of causing bodily injury
leading to scars or disfigurement or temporary or
permanent disability.
Explanation 2.— For the purposes of
section 326A and this section, permanent or partial
damage or deformity shall not be required to be
irreversible."

21. The insertion of Sections 326A and 326B IPC

with effect from 03.02.2013 did not automatically alter the legal

position of pending cases arising from incidents that occurred

before that date. These provisions created new substantive

offences and prescribed enhanced punishments for acid attacks
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.195 of 2014 dt.23-06-2026
16/27

and attempted acid attacks. Being substantive penal provisions,

they operate prospectively and cannot be applied retrospectively

because of the constitutional bar contained in Article 20(1) of

the Constitution.

22. The Sections 326, 326 A and 326 B of IPC lays

down the punishment for acid attacks. The minimum

punishment is 10 years. Mere proof of a burn caused by acid

would generally satisfy the "dangerous means" requirement,

subject to prove of the act and the injury. The Hon'ble Supreme

Court in case of Laxmi Vs. Union of India, reported in (2014)

4 SCC 427, issued extensive directions, regulating the sale of

acid and protecting acid attack victims.

23. It is well settled principle of law that mere oral

allegation is not sufficient where the very nature of injury is

capable of objective medical verification. Therefore, relevant

consideration would be does medical evidence show chemical

burn?

24. Upon consideration of oral evidence on the

record, it reveals that P.W.1 – Anil Upadhyay is not an

eyewitness to the actual occurrence and has admittedly not seen

the accused throwing acid upon any of the injured persons. His

knowledge regarding the identity of the assailant is derived
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.195 of 2014 dt.23-06-2026
17/27

solely from what was narrated to him by the injured persons

after the occurrence. In paragraph 6 of his cross-examination, he

has specifically stated that he did not witness the occurrence and

had deposed on the basis of what was told to him by the injured

persons. Thus, his evidence is essentially hearsay in nature so

far as the participation of the accused in the alleged offence is

concerned. Although he claims to have seen the injured persons

suffering from burn injuries and noticed a hole in the wall, his

testimony does not constitute direct evidence regarding the

manner of occurrence or the role attributed to the accused.

Consequently, the evidentiary value of P.W.1 is confined only to

the fact that he reached the place of occurrence after the incident

and found the injured persons in a burnt condition, and his

testimony cannot be treated as substantive evidence for proving

the alleged act of acid throwing by the accused.

25. P.W.7 – Dr. Md. Amanullah is only a medical

witness who has proved the injuries sustained by the victims and

does not provide any direct evidence regarding the occurrence

itself. The prosecution witnesses have attributed the alleged act

of throwing acid exclusively to the accused Anand Prasad

Yadav.

26. The prosecution case substantially rests upon
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.195 of 2014 dt.23-06-2026
18/27

the testimonies of P.W.2 – Digvijay Yadav (injured witness),

P.W.4 – Pinky Kumari and P.W.6 – Sharda Devi, who are stated

to be victims of the alleged acid attack. Their version receives

limited corroboration from P.W.1 – Anil Upadhyay. P.W.3 and

P.W.5 appear to be supporting witnesses, though the details of

their evidence are not fully reflected in the extracted portion of

the judgment. The medical evidence of P.W.7 – Dr. Md.

Amanullah undoubtedly establishes that the injured persons had

sustained burn injuries consistent with exposure to a corrosive

substance; however, the medical evidence by itself does not

identify the author of the injuries nor does it conclusively

establish the manner in which the occurrence took place

27. The record reveals that the occurrence arose

out of a pre-existing land dispute between the parties. However,

the record itself indicates that the prosecution witnesses are

closely related and interested witnesses, and no independent

witness to the actual occurrence has been examined. Further, the

prosecution version is based upon the allegation that the accused

threw acid through a hole allegedly made in the wall, yet the

evidence regarding the exact manner of occurrence and

surrounding circumstances requires careful scrutiny. In such

circumstances, the prosecution case principally rests upon the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.195 of 2014 dt.23-06-2026
19/27

testimony of related injured witnesses, supported by medical

evidence regarding burn injuries, and its reliability must be

assessed in the light of the overall evidence and circumstances

appearing on the record. Significantly, no independent witness

to the actual occurrence has been examined despite the alleged

incident having taken place in a residential locality. In such

circumstances, while the factum of burn injuries may stand

established through the medical evidence, the evidence

regarding the identity of the assailant and the precise manner of

occurrence rests substantially upon the testimony of related

witnesses. Therefore, the possibility of embellishment or

exaggeration in the prosecution version cannot be completely

ruled out and the prosecution evidence requires cautious

scrutiny before recording a finding of guilt beyond reasonable

doubt.

The point of determination in facts and

circumstances of the case whether the learned trial court erred

in convicting the appellant under Section 324 of the Indian

Penal Code instead of for offence under Sections 326 or 307

of IPC?

28. The record reveals that the charge-sheet was

submitted under Section 307 IPC and the conviction is under
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.195 of 2014 dt.23-06-2026
20/27

Section 324 IPC. To attract the offence under Section 307 IPC

an attempt to commit murder must be clearly distinguished from

a mere intention to commit the offence or from acts that amount

only to preparation for its commission. The law recognizes that

the existence of a guilty intention alone is not sufficient to

constitute an attempt. There must be something more than

planning or arranging the means to commit the crime.

29. The Apex Court laid down the litmus test for

determination of nature of offence in Pulicherla Nagaraju v.

State of A.P. reported in (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 500. In the facts

and circumstances of a particular case, the Court needs to decide

the pivotal question of existence of intention with care and

caution. The following factors needs to be examined:

"(i) nature of the weapon used;
(ii)whether the weapon was carried by the accused or
was picked up from the spot;
(iii) whether the blow is aimed at a vital part of the body;
(iv) the amount of force employed in causing injury;
(v) whether the act was in the course of sudden quarrel or
sudden fight or free for all fight;
(vi) whether the incident occurs by chance or whether
there was any premeditation;
(vii) whether there was any prior enmity or whether the
deceased was a stranger;
(viii)whether there was any grave and sudden
provocation, and if so, the cause for such provocation;
(ix) whether it was in the heat of passion;
(x) whether the person inflicting the injury has taken
undue advantage or has acted in a cruel and unusual
manner;
(xi) whether the accused dealt a single blow or several
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.195 of 2014 dt.23-06-2026
21/27

blows."

30. The similar question came up before the Supreme

Court in the case of Joseph v. State of Kerala, reported in 1995

SCC (Cri) 165 has observed in para 3 which is reproduced

hereinafter:

“3. In this appeal the learned
counsel for the appellant submits that the
intention to cause the injury which was found
sufficient to cause the death in the ordinary
course of the nature was not established. In
support of this submission he relied on the
circumstances namely that the whole incident
took place because of a trivial incident which
resulted in a quarrel and that the weapon
used was only a lathi and in the
circumstances it cannot be said that the
accused intended to cause the death by
inflicting that particular injury which
objectively was proved by the medical
evidence to be sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death. In other
words he submits that clause 3rdly of Section
300 IPC is not attracted in this case. We find
considerable force in the submission. The
weapon used is not a deadly weapon as
rightly contended by the learned counsel. The
whole occurrence was a result of a trivial
incident and in those circumstances the
accused dealt two blows on the head with a
lathi, therefore, it cannot be stated that he
intended to cause the injury which is
sufficient (sic). At the most it can be said that
by inflicting such injuries he had knowledge
that he was likely to cause the death. In
which case the offence committed by him
would be culpable homicide not amounting
to murder. We accordingly set aside the
conviction of the appellant under Section 302
IPC and the sentence of imprisonment for life
awarded thereunder. Instead we convict the
appellant under Section 304 Part II IPC and
sentence him to five years' RI.”
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.195 of 2014 dt.23-06-2026
22/27

31. The judgment of Joseph (supra) was referred

by the Apex Court in the case of Jugatram Vs. State of

Chhattisgarh, reported in (2020) 9 SCC 520 and recently in the

case of Sivamani v. State, reported in, 2023 SCC OnLine SC

1581, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph no. 9 has held

inter alia as under:

“ 9. In State of Madhya Pradesh v.
Saleem, (2005) 5 SCC 554, the Court held that to
sustain a conviction under Section 307, IPC, it was
not necessary that a bodily injury capable of
resulting in death should have been inflicted. As
such, non-conviction under Section 307, IPC on the
premise only that simple injury was inflicted does
not follow as a matter of course. In the same
judgment, it was pointed out that ‘…The court has
to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was
done with the intention or knowledge and under
circumstances mentioned in the section.’ The
position that because a fatal injury was not
sustained alone does not dislodge Section 307, IPC
conviction has been reiterated in Jage Ram v. State
of Haryana, (2015) 11 SCC 366 and State of
Madhya Pradesh v. Kanha, (2019) 3 SCC 605. Yet,
in Jage Ram (supra) and Kanha (supra), it was
observed that while grievous or life-threatening
injury was not necessary to maintain a conviction
under Section 307, IPC, ‘The intention of the
accused can be ascertained from the actual injury,
if any, as well as from surrounding circumstances.
Among other things, the nature of the weapon used
and the severity of the blows inflicted can be
considered to infer intent.”

32. In the facts of the present case, therefore, Section

307 IPC is not attracted. Now I analyse weather offence under

Section 326 IPC is made out.

33. In case of Pritam Chauhan v. State (Govt. of

NCT of Delhi), reported in (2014) 9 SCC 637, the Apex Court
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.195 of 2014 dt.23-06-2026
23/27

has held as under:

“5. The punishment contemplated under
Section 326 IPC is imprisonment for life or with
imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to ten years, along with fine. In a recent
pronouncement of this Court in Gopal Singh v. State
of Uttarakhand [(2013) 7 SCC 545 : (2013) 3 SCC
(Cri) 608] it has been held that the “principle of just
punishment” is the bedrock of sentencing in respect
of a criminal offence. The wide discretion that is
vested in the courts in matters of sentencing must be
exercised on rational parameters in the light of the
totality of the facts of any given case. The doctrine
of proportionality has to be invoked in the context of
the facts in which the crime had been committed, the
antecedents of the accused, the age of the accused
and such other relevant factors.”

34. The material evidence shows burn injury caused

by acid, which is supported by exhibit 2 to 2/C, therefore, the

prosecution has to establish its case that the appellant is the one,

who had caused acid injury, but there is no clear finding of the

learned trial Court on this point.

ON THE POINT OF IDENTIFICATION OF

ACCUSED

35. So far as the identification of the appellant is

concerned, this Court finds that the prosecution evidence is not

free from doubt. Admittedly, none of the independent witnesses,

namely P.W. 1 Anil Upadhyay, P.W. 3 Santosh Upadhyay and

P.W. 5 Anand Prasad Yadav, had actually witnessed the

appellant throwing acid upon the victims. Their knowledge
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.195 of 2014 dt.23-06-2026
24/27

regarding the identity of the assailant is entirely derivative,

being based upon what was allegedly narrated to them by the

injured persons after the occurrence. Their evidence, therefore,

is hearsay insofar as the identification of the appellant is

concerned and cannot constitute substantive evidence of the

appellant's participation in the occurrence.

36. Though P.W. 2, P.W. 4 and P.W. 6 have sought to

identify the appellant as the person who threw acid, their

testimonies require careful scrutiny in light of the surrounding

circumstances. The prosecution case itself suggests that the

occurrence took place suddenly after a hole had allegedly been

made in the wall and acid was thrown through the opening. The

evidence does not clearly establish the conditions under which

the witnesses could have had a clear and unobstructed view of

the person standing on the other side of the wall. No Test

Identification Parade was conducted during investigation, nor

has the prosecution produced any independent eyewitness who

actually saw the appellant throwing acid. The prosecution

version regarding identification thus rests solely upon the

testimony of interested and related witnesses.

37. Moreover, while the medical evidence establishes

that the victims sustained burn injuries, it does not, by itself,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.195 of 2014 dt.23-06-2026
25/27

connect the appellant with the commission of the offence.

Medical evidence can corroborate the factum of injuries but

cannot establish the identity of the offender. Thus, although the

prosecution has succeeded in proving that an acid attack had

occurred, the evidence regarding the appellant's identification as

the perpetrator does not attain the degree of certainty required in

a criminal trial. The cumulative effect of the aforesaid

circumstances creates a reasonable doubt regarding the identity

of the assailant, and such doubt must necessarily enure to the

benefit of the appellant.

Whether the accused deserves benefit of doubt?

38. The medical evidence of P.W.7 – Dr. Md.

Amanullah establishes the existence of burn injuries on the

victims but does not conclusively identify the perpetrator or

independently corroborate the precise manner in which the

occurrence is alleged to have taken place. In the backdrop of the

admitted previous enmity between the parties, the absence of

independent eyewitnesses, and the fact that the prosecution case

rests substantially upon the testimony of related witnesses, the

possibility of embellishment or exaggeration cannot be

completely ruled out. When these circumstances are considered

cumulatively, the prosecution evidence requires careful scrutiny
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.195 of 2014 dt.23-06-2026
26/27

before a finding of guilt can be recorded, particularly with

regard to the intention attributable to the accused and the precise

nature of the offence alleged against him. The prosecution has

failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable

doubt. The learned trial court has erred in appreciating the

evidence in convicting the appellants under Section 324 of the

Indian Penal Code, particularly in view of the injury reports

showing burn injuries and in the background of the discussions

made hereinabove, the impugned judgment of conviction dated

31.03.2014 passed in S.Tr. No. 515 of 2010 (arising out of

Gaunaha P.S. Case No. 39/2010) by learned Adhoc Addl.

Sessions Judge, IIIrd, Bettiah, West Champaran, whereby the

appellant has been convicted under Section 324 of the Indian

Penal Code, cannot sustain in absence of material witnesses and

substantial evidences.

39. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of

conviction dated 31.03.2014 passed in S.Tr. No. 515 of 2010

(arising out of Gaunaha P.S. Case No. 39/2010) by learned

Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge, IIIrd, Bettiah, West Champaran, is

hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, the above-named

appellant/accused is acquitted from all the charges levelled

against them. Since the appellant is on bail, as such, he is
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.195 of 2014 dt.23-06-2026
27/27

discharged from the liability of his bail bonds. The fine

deposited by the appellant, if any, shall be refunded to him.

40. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed.

41. Office is directed to send back the lower court

records along with a copy of the judgment to the learned District

Court forthwith.

(Purnendu Singh, J)

Niraj/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE 16.06.2026
Uploading Date 23.06.2026
Transmission Date 23.06.2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.