Delhi District Court
State vs Munna @ Junaid on 28 April, 2026
DLND010050332021 Page 1 of 80
SC 194/2021
STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID
FIR No.12/2020
(Barakhamba Road)
U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-05
NEW DELHI DISTRICT : PATIALA HOUSE COURTS : NEW DELHI
SC 194/2021
STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID
FIR No.12/2020
U/s 326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
PS: Barakhamba Road
In the matter of :-
State
(through Ld. Addl. PP Sh. Mukul Kumar)
Vs.
Munna @ Junaid
S/o Mohd. Junaid Sheikh
Resident of J.J. Colony, Bawana, Delhi
(Permanent Address: Village Post Office Katra, Muzaffarpur, Bihar
(represented by Ld. Counsel Sh. N.K. Jha)
Date of Institution : 07.02.2021
Date of Arguments Heard : 22.04.2026
(Written arguments also filed on 22.04.2026)
Date of Judgment : 28.04.2026
Final decision : Convicted
DLND010050332021 Page 2 of 80
SC 194/2021
STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID
FIR No.12/2020
(Barakhamba Road)
U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
JUDGMENT
1. INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF FACTS 1.1. The accused, Munna @ Junaid, aged approximately 42 years, stands charged under Section 326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), for voluntarily causing grievous hurt by means of acid to the complainant/victim, Smt. 'N' (name concealed), his former wife. The prosecution case, as outlined in the charge sheet dated 19.03.2020, stems from FIR No. 12/2020 registered at Police Station Barakhamba Road, New Delhi, under the aforementioned section. 1.2. According to the prosecution, on the intervening night of 18- 19.03.2020, at approximately 11:00-11:15 p.m., behind KFC, Janpath, Connaught Place, New Delhi, the accused threw acid from a small plastic bottle (identified as a 250 ml Zitaara Piyo Bindas Cola bottle) onto the victim's face, neck, chest, and arm while she was walking home from work. The victim sustained severe burn injuries, necessitating immediate medical attention at Ram Manohar Lohia (RML) Hospital. The act is alleged to have been motivated by marital discord, following the accused's pronouncement of divorce under Muslim personal law, and prior threats issued by the accused, including statements such as "Agar tu meri nahi ho sakti to kisi ki bhi nahi ho sakegi" (If you cannot be mine, you cannot be anyone's).
1.3. The accused was arrested on 19.03.2020 and has remained in judicial custody. The charge sheet was filed on 19.03.2020, under section 326A IPC, warranting trial by a Court of Sessions. Post committal charges DLND010050332021 Page 3 of 80 SC 194/2021 STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID FIR No.12/2020 (Barakhamba Road) U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 were framed on 07.02.2021, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
2. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE The prosecution examined several witnesses and relied upon documentary and material exhibits to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. A summary of the key evidence is as follows:
2.1. PW-1: SI Puran Ram1, No. 5449/D A) Deposition Summary:
i. PW-1 was posted as Mobile Crime Team In-charge of New Delhi District on the intervening night of 18-19.03.2020. At approximately 01:25 AM, he received a PCR call regarding acid throwing incident on a lady and was specifically directed to reach the crime scene at Gali Janpath Road, Barakhamba Road, behind Pind Baluchi Restaurant. He proceeded to the location with his team consisting of HC Ravinder (photographer) and HC Bijender (fingerprint expert). Upon reaching the scene, they met the Investigating Officer SI Lokesh Kumar who was already present.
ii. At the crime scene, he observed and found one burnt red colour chunni (dupatta) and one empty plastic bottle which emitted a distinct smell of chemical substance/acid. Both items were lying at the spot where the alleged incident had occurred. The 1 Designation: Mobile Crime Team, New Delhi; Date of Examination: 02.12.2021 DLND010050332021 Page 4 of 80 SC 194/2021 STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID FIR No.12/2020 (Barakhamba Road) U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 photographer HC Ravinder took photographs of the scene from various angles to document the evidence. The IO SI Lokesh Kumar seized both the chunni and plastic bottle in his presence, following proper legal procedures. PW-1 prepared a comprehensive Scene of Crime (SOC) inspection report detailing his observations, findings, and the condition of evidence at the scene, which he handed over to the Investigating Officer for further action and record.
B) Documents Proved: Scene of Crime inspection report in his handwriting bearing his signature at point A - Ex. PW1/1 C) Exhibits Identified: None specifically identified by this witness. D) Cross-Examination: During cross-examination conducted by Sh.
N.K. Jha, learned counsel for the accused, PW-1 confirmed that the information regarding the incident was received from New Delhi District control room through proper official channels. The defense counsel attempted to challenge the witness's presence at the scene and the recovery of evidence. However, PW-1 categorically denied all suggestions put forth by the defense. He specifically rejected the suggestion that he had not seen any bottle or chunni at the scene of crime, maintaining that both items were clearly visible and present when he arrived. He also denied the suggestion that no recovery of any bottle or chunni was effected in his presence, confirming that the seizure was conducted properly in his presence. Finally, he refuted the suggestion that he had not inspected the scene of crime, DLND010050332021 Page 5 of 80 SC 194/2021 STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID FIR No.12/2020 (Barakhamba Road) U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 affirming that he had thoroughly examined the area and prepared a detailed inspection report based on his personal observations. 2.2. PW-2: Ms. 'N'2 (Victim/Complainant) A) Deposition Summary:
i. PW-2, the victim and complainant in this case, provided comprehensive testimony about the incident and her background. She identified herself as a resident of the stated address and works as a housemaid by profession. Being illiterate, she originally belongs to West Bengal. She had three children from her first marriage with her deceased husband Saurav. Subsequently, she married the accused Munna, whom she correctly identified in court during her testimony. ii. She testified that her marriage with Munna took place approximately 14-15 years prior to the date of her examination, though she could not recall the exact date. Munna belonged to the Muslim religion. The marriage began deteriorating after approximately 1-2 months when Munna started quarreling with her and pressurizing her to abandon her children from her previous marriage. When she refused to leave her children, she obtained a divorce from Munna through proper Muslim rites and procedure. After the divorce, Munna started residing in JJ Colony, Bawana.
iii. Regarding the incident, she could not remember the exact date 2 R/o Shastri Park, Delhi Date of Examination: 29.03.2022 DLND010050332021 Page 6 of 80 SC 194/2021 STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID FIR No.12/2020 (Barakhamba Road) U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 but confirmed it was 18th March (year not recalled), approximately three days prior to the first COVID-19 lockdown in the country. The time was around 11:00-11:15 PM when she was present at Janpath, Connaught Place behind KFC, Delhi, where she was working in shops as a maid. During this time, Munna approached her and said "bachche chhodne ko bola tha, tune chhode nahi, tu meri nahi ho saki to kisi aur ki bhi nahi hone dunga" (You were asked to leave the children, you didn't leave them, if you can't be mine then you won't be anyone else's). Immediately after these threatening words, he threw acid on her face from a bottle he was carrying. He then threw the bottle at the location and fled from the scene.
iv. The acid caused immediate burning sensation on her face. She attempted to clean her face using her dupatta, but the burning sensation intensified. She then threw her dupatta at the spot and ran to the PCR van that was stationed nearby at Janpath. She reported the incident to the PCR officials who, upon seeing her condition, washed her face with water. The acid attack caused her skin to start peeling off. The PCR van immediately transported her to the hospital where she received medical treatment. v. At the hospital, police officials including the SHO arrived and conducted inquiry. Her statement was recorded. When police inquired about the accused's whereabouts, she informed them that he would probably be available at his brother's address in DLND010050332021 Page 7 of 80 SC 194/2021 STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID FIR No.12/2020 (Barakhamba Road) U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 Darya Ganj. The police brought the accused to the hospital itself where she identified him, leading to his arrest. She was also taken to court where her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded, and later to the crime spot where the site plan was prepared at her instance.
vi. She suffered burn injuries on her arm, face, neck, and chest due to the acid attack. She could not remember her mobile number at the time as the phone was subsequently stolen. B) Documents Proved:
i. Her statement recorded at hospital - Ex. PW2/A (RTI at points A and B) ii. Arrest memo of accused - Ex. PW2/B (RTI at point A) iii. Her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. - Ex. PW2/C (RTI at point A) C) Exhibits Identified:
i. Blue suit, red salwar, and violet bra (her clothes worn during incident) - Ex. P1 (collectively) ii. Red colour dupatta in spoiled/burnt condition - Ex. P2 D) Cross-Examination:
i. During extensive cross-examination by Sh. N.K. Jha, learned counsel for the accused, several aspects of her testimony were challenged. She admitted to knowing Munna for approximately 11-12 years before getting romantically involved and subsequently marrying him. She was unaware whether Munna DLND010050332021 Page 8 of 80 SC 194/2021 STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID FIR No.12/2020 (Barakhamba Road) U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was already married at the time of their marriage. She confirmed she first met Munna in JJ Colony, Bawana, Delhi. ii. Regarding her work, she confirmed working as Safai Karamchari (cleaner) in six different shops but could not recall their names and addresses. She worked during evening shift, usually between 8:00-11:30 PM. Concerning the incident timing, she maintained it occurred approximately three days before the lockdown, but when confronted with the suggestion that the incident took place on the first day of lockdown in 2020, she categorically denied this.
iii. She could not provide specific details about the acid bottle, whether it had been cut or was just opened, describing it only as a small water bottle. She could not recall the color due to the traumatic nature of the attack and her inability to see properly during the incident.
iv. She acknowledged that there had been a quarrel with the accused about one month prior to the incident, specifically at the time of taking divorce. However, she strongly denied several suggestions made by the defense: that she had threatened to implicate him in a false case during their quarrel; that she was unaware of any complaint filed by the accused in this regard; that she lodged the false case to accomplish her alleged threat; and that she had demanded money from the accused for settlement. v. She admitted she could not identify any eyewitness to the DLND010050332021 Page 9 of 80 SC 194/2021 STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID FIR No.12/2020 (Barakhamba Road) U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 incident. She denied giving wrong clothes to police to mislead the investigation and maintained that the accused was present at the spot during the incident. She confirmed she was unaware of exact dates of marriage or divorce but maintained that after the incident, she went to the PCR van stationed 20-30 yards away from the spot. She was familiar with the PCR van's location as she regularly worked in that area.
vi. She acknowledged that the accused had some leg problem but clarified that despite this disability, he could move fast and run. She categorically denied all suggestions that her allegations were false, that the accused was falsely implicated, that she had lodged a false case, or that she had deliberately destroyed her mobile phone to eliminate evidence that could have helped the accused. She also denied that the accused had no role in the incident or that she falsely implicated him due to his non-compliance with her demands.
2.3. PW-3: ASI Ravinder Kumar3, No. 4566 A) Deposition Summary:
i. PW-3 served as photographer in the mobile crime team of New Delhi District, Mandir Marg on 19.03.2020. His team consisted of crime team in-charge ASI Puran Ram and fingerprint expert HC Bijender. Upon receiving the call, the team proceeded to the crime scene located behind Pind Baluchi Restaurant, Janpath 3 Designation: Photographer, Security Line, Mobile Crime Team; Date of Examination: 28.11.2022 DLND010050332021 Page 10 of 80 SC 194/2021 STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID FIR No.12/2020 (Barakhamba Road) U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 Barakhamba, near Bhogal Chole Bhature Wala Shop, Connaught Place. At the scene, they met SI Lokesh Kumar along with other police personnel.
ii. Acting on the directions of the Investigating Officer and ASI Puran Ram, he conducted a thorough inspection of the crime scene. Using a digital camera, he clicked a total of 10 photographs of the scene from various angles to comprehensively document the evidence and the condition of the crime scene. After completing the photography work, the crime team in- charge prepared his scene of crime inspection report and handed it over to the Investigating Officer.
iii. Back at the office, he processed the digital photographs. Out of the 10 photographs taken, he successfully developed 8 photographs, as 2 were found to be blank from the digital camera. These 8 developed photographs were collected by the Investigating Officer for the case file. He also prepared a CD containing all the photographs taken from the digital camera and brought it to court.
B) Documents Proved: 8 photographs of scene of crime taken by him - Ex. PW3/A (collectively) C) Cross-Examination:
i. During cross-examination conducted by Sh. Raj Tilak, learned counsel for the accused, PW-3 provided specific details about the timing and duration of their presence at the crime scene. He DLND010050332021 Page 11 of 80 SC 194/2021 STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID FIR No.12/2020 (Barakhamba Road) U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 confirmed that the mobile crime team reached the spot at approximately 01:40 AM after being called by the Investigating Officer through the control room. The team remained at the crime scene for about 30 minutes to complete all necessary documentation and photography work.
ii. The defense counsel challenged the witness's presence and work at the scene, but PW-3 categorically denied the suggestion that he had not clicked photographs of the scene of crime on 19.03.2020. He maintained that all his testimony was truthful and denied deposing falsely.
2.4. PW-4: W/HC Jyoti4, No. 6052 A) Deposition Summary:
i. PW-4 was posted as constable at PS Barakhamba Road on the intervening night of 18-19.03.2020 and joined the investigation of this case. Upon receipt of DD No. 2A, she along with Ct. Gaurav and SI Lokesh reached the crime scene behind Pind Baluchi Restaurant, near Bhogal Chole Bhature Wala Shop, Janpath Lane, Connaught Place.
ii. At the crime scene, they discovered one red colour dupatta in burnt condition and one empty plastic bottle of Zitara Piyo Bindas Cola (250 ml). Upon making formal inquiry, they learned that the injured victim had been removed to RML Hospital. The Investigating Officer left Ct. Gaurav at the spot to safeguard the 4 Designation: Security Parliament House, New Delhi; Date of Examination: 28.11.2022 and recalled on 23.03.2023 DLND010050332021 Page 12 of 80 SC 194/2021 STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID FIR No.12/2020 (Barakhamba Road) U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 scene of crime while he and PW-4 proceeded to RML Hospital. iii. At RML Hospital, SI Lokesh collected the MLC (Medico-Legal Case report) of injured 'N' and they met with the attending doctor. The injured 'N' was found under medical treatment. The examining doctor handed over a sealed pullanda containing the clothes of the injured victim (suit and salwar) which were taken into police possession by the IO through proper seizure memo. The IO also recorded the statement of injured 'N' at the hospital. iv. They returned to the crime scene where the IO called the mobile crime team. The mobile crime team conducted thorough inspection of the scene of crime. Subsequently, the IO seized the above-mentioned dupatta and bottle by preparing separate pullandas and affixing the seal of 'LK'. The IO prepared his endorsement for registration of FIR based on the statement of injured 'N', converting the same into rukka, which was handed over to Ct. Gaurav with directions to get the FIR registered. v. While Ct. Gaurav went to the police station with the rukka, the mobile crime team in-charge handed over his scene of crime report to the IO. Ct. Gaurav returned from the PS and handed over the original rukka along with copy of FIR to IO/SI Lokesh. They again proceeded to RML Hospital where the injured was further inquired by the IO about the residence of accused Munna. She informed that the accused might be available at his brother's house.DLND010050332021 Page 13 of 80 SC 194/2021
STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID FIR No.12/2020 (Barakhamba Road) U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 vi. Following this information, they went to the given address in search of accused Munna where they met Phool Babu, brother of the accused. Phool Babu informed them that accused Munna used to visit his house but was not presently there. Phool Babu joined the investigation. When they reached near a crossing at some distance from Phool Babu's house, Phool Babu pointed out his brother accused Munna who was sitting there. Upon seeing the police party and Phool Babu, accused Munna started running away but was chased by SI Lokesh with help of Ct. Gaurav and was successfully apprehended and interrogated by the IO. vii. The accused Munna was then brought to RML Hospital where injured 'N' identified him as the same person who had poured/thrown acid upon her. The accused was further joined in the investigation and pointed out the scene of crime, upon which the IO prepared a pointing out memo.
B) Documents Proved: Seizure memo of victim's clothes from hospital
- Ex. PW4/A (signature at point A) C) Exhibits Identified: None specifically by this witness. D) Cross-Examination:
i. During the initial cross-examination on 28.11.2022, the defense counsel requested deferment, which was allowed. The detailed cross-examination was conducted when she was recalled on 23.03.2023.
ii. In her cross-examination by Sh. Raj Tilak Guha Roy, learned DLND010050332021 Page 14 of 80 SC 194/2021 STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID FIR No.12/2020 (Barakhamba Road) U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 counsel for the accused, she provided specific timing details. DD No. 2A was received around 01:00 AM and she reached the crime scene within 15-20 minutes. She confirmed that public persons were present at the spot, but none of them claimed to be eyewitnesses to the incident. She could not recall whether the IO had asked any public person to join the investigation. iii. She could not remember the exact time when they reached RML Hospital or how long they remained there, though she confirmed they stayed for substantial time. Similarly, she could not recall the time when they returned from hospital to the crime scene. She did not remember seeing any CCTV cameras installed at the place of occurrence.
iv. She confirmed that SI Lokesh made a call to the Crime Team from the hospital itself, and when they returned to the scene, the Crime Team had already arrived. She could not recall the exact time when Ct. Gaurav left the spot for the PS with the rukka or when he returned.
v. Regarding their visit to search for the accused, she confirmed they went to the house of the elder brother of the accused in Darya Ganj but could not remember the exact time they reached there. She could not recall if any police official from PS Darya Ganj was called to join the investigation. She confirmed it was very early morning/dawn when they reached Phool Babu's house, and no public persons were present outside his house initially.
DLND010050332021 Page 15 of 80 SC 194/2021STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID FIR No.12/2020 (Barakhamba Road) U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 The accused was found within 5-7 minutes, and by that time some public persons had gathered. She could not remember if the IO joined any public person in the investigation at that time. vi. She strongly denied the defense suggestions that she did not join the investigation (which would explain her inability to remember timings), that all documentation work was done sitting in the police station, or that she was deposing falsely. 2.5. PW-5: W/Ct. Neha5, No. 1275/ND A) Deposition Summary:
i. PW-5 was posted at PS Barakhamba Road on 04.05.2020 and joined the investigation of the present case along with SI Lokesh Kumar, victim/complainant Ms. 'N', and her friend Sita Goswami. Their first destination was Patiala House Court where IO SI Lokesh Kumar moved an application for recording the statement of victim Ms. 'N' under Section 164 Cr.P.C. ii. The application was assigned to the learned Link Magistrate who recorded the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. SI Lokesh Kumar obtained a copy of the victim's statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. After the court proceedings, the victim and Sita Goswami were further joined in the investigation. iii. They then proceeded to the crime scene behind Pind Baluchi restaurant near Bhogal Chole Kulche Wala, Connaught Lane, Janpath, New Delhi. At the crime scene, the victim pointed out 5 Posted at: PS Barakhamba Road;
Date of Examination: 01.02.2023 DLND010050332021 Page 16 of 80 SC 194/2021 STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID FIR No.12/2020 (Barakhamba Road) U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 the exact spot where the incident had occurred, stating that her husband had thrown acid upon her on the intervening night of 18- 19.03.2020. Based on the victim's instance and pointing out, IO SI Lokesh Kumar prepared a rough site plan of the crime scene.
He also recorded the supplementary statement of the victim at the scene. After completing all necessary work at the crime scene, they returned to the police station. The IO also recorded PW-5's statement during the investigation.
B) Documents Proved: None.
C) Cross-Examination:
i. During cross-examination by Sh. Raj Tilak, learned counsel for the accused, PW-5 provided specific timing details of their activities. She confirmed they left the police station for Patiala House Court during noon time, and that IO SI Lokesh had made proper departure entry in the station records. The proceedings at Patiala House Court took approximately two to two and a half hours for getting the victim's statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
ii. They left Patiala House Court at about 03:00 PM and proceeded directly to the crime spot. However, she could not recall the exact time when they reached the crime scene. At the spot, the victim herself provided details of the incident and identified the exact location where it occurred. She could not remember whether the IO had made any inquiry from Bhogal Chole Kulche Wala vendor DLND010050332021 Page 17 of 80 SC 194/2021 STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID FIR No.12/2020 (Barakhamba Road) U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 or any other person present in the area regarding the incident. iii. She categorically denied the defense suggestions that she had not joined the investigation at any point of time or that she was deposing falsely at the instance of the IO.
2.6. PW-6: Ct. Jitender6, No. 1449/ND A) Deposition Summary:
i. PW-6 provided brief but important testimony regarding the transmission of case property to the forensic laboratory. On 20.05.2020, while working as Constable posted at PS Barakhamba Road, he was assigned specific duties by the Investigating Officer. Following the IO's instructions, he collected three exhibits and sample seal along with the forwarding letter from MHCM (Malkhana Head Constable/Moharrir) vide RC No. 15/21/2020.
ii. He then transported these materials to RFSL (Regional Forensic Science Laboratory) Chanakya Puri and deposited them for scientific examination and analysis. This step was crucial for the forensic examination of the evidence collected in the case. After successfully depositing the case property at RFSL, he returned to the police station and handed over the duly acknowledged copy to the MHCM for record keeping. The IO subsequently recorded his statement regarding these activities.
B) Documents Proved: None.
6Posted: PS South Avenue (formerly PS Barakhamba Road); Date of Examination: 18.09.2023 DLND010050332021 Page 18 of 80 SC 194/2021 STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID FIR No.12/2020 (Barakhamba Road) U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 C) Cross-Examination: No cross-examination was conducted as nil opportunity was given by the learned counsel for the accused. 2.7. PW-7: Dr. Akhilesh Thole7 A) Deposition Summary:
i. PW-7 testified under authorization from the Medical Superintendent of Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi, to appear on behalf of Dr. Soma Dey in the present case. Dr. Soma Dey had since left the services of the hospital and her whereabouts were unknown at the time of testimony. PW-7 had examined MLC No. 63043/244799 pertaining to victim 'N', W/o Munna, female aged about 40 years.
ii. According to the hospital records, the patient was brought to the hospital by ASI Heera Lal on 18.03.2020 at about 11:40 PM with alleged history of chemical burn/acid assault that had occurred on 18.03.2020. The patient was immediately referred to the Surgical Emergency Department for specialized treatment. PW-7 was able to identify the handwriting and signature of Dr. Soma Dey as she had worked under his supervision and he had seen her writing and signing documents in his normal course of duties. iii. Dr. Soma Dey had prepared the MLC which documented the patient's condition upon arrival. According to the medical records, the patient was suffering from grievous injuries caused by the acid attack. The MLC also noted that the patient was fit 7 Designation: Senior Medical Officer, Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital; Date of Examination: 04.06.2024 DLND010050332021 Page 19 of 80 SC 194/2021 STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID FIR No.12/2020 (Barakhamba Road) U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for giving a statement, indicating her mental and physical capacity to provide testimony about the incident despite her injuries.
B) Documents Proved: MLC signed by Dr. Soma Dey - Ex. PW7/A (signed at point A) C) Cross-Examination:
i. During cross-examination by Sh. Raj Tilak Guha Roy, learned counsel for the accused, PW-7 acknowledged that he was not aware of the specific type of acid or chemical substance used to cause injuries to the patient in the present case. However, he firmly denied several suggestions made by the defense. ii. He categorically denied that he had not been properly authorized by the Medical Superintendent of the hospital to depose on behalf of Dr. Soma Dey, confirming that he had proper authorization. He also denied that Dr. Soma Dey had not worked under his supervision, maintaining that she was indeed his subordinate and he was familiar with her work.
iii. He strongly refuted the suggestion that he had wrongly identified the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Soma Dey, asserting that his identification was accurate based on his familiarity with her writing from their professional association. He confirmed that the history mentioned in the MLC was as provided by the patient herself and that according to medical assessment, she was fit for giving a statement. Finally, he denied deposing falsely, DLND010050332021 Page 20 of 80 SC 194/2021 STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID FIR No.12/2020 (Barakhamba Road) U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 maintaining the truthfulness of his testimony. 2.8. PW-8: Smt. Sita Goswami8 A) Deposition Summary:
i. PW-8, a 35-year-old illiterate woman and friend of the victim, provided crucial testimony about receiving information about the incident and her subsequent involvement. On the intervening night of 18-19.03.2020, she received a phone call from 'N' informing her about the acid attack. 'N' told her that her earlier husband Munna had thrown acid upon her face in the Janpath area. 'N' also informed her that she had divorced Munna @ Junaid and that he had previously threatened her with the words " Agar tu meri nahi ho saki to kisi ki bhi nahi ho sakegi" (If you can't be mine, then you won't be anyone else's).
ii. On the morning of 19.03.2020, PW-8 went to RML Hospital where 'N' was admitted for treatment of her injuries. She provided emotional support to her friend during this difficult time. She also accompanied 'N' to various places as part of the investigation process. Specifically, she accompanied 'N' to the place of incident at Janpath so that 'N' could show the exact location where the attack occurred. She also accompanied 'N' to Patiala House Courts where 'N''s statement was recorded under legal procedures. Throughout the investigation, the IO recorded her statement regarding her knowledge of the incident and her 8 W/o Upender Goswami, R/o Usman Pur, Pehla Pusta, Delhi; Date of Examination: 30.08.2024 DLND010050332021 Page 21 of 80 SC 194/2021 STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID FIR No.12/2020 (Barakhamba Road) U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 friend's ordeal.
B) Documents Proved: None.
C) Exhibits Identified: None.
D) Cross-Examination:
i. During cross-examination by Sh. Raj Tilak Guha Roy, learned counsel for the accused, PW-8 provided additional details about her relationship with the victim and the circumstances surrounding the incident. She confirmed that she had known 'N' for approximately 4-5 years from the date of the incident, during which time 'N' was her neighbor.
ii. She explained their housing history: initially, both she and 'N' were tenants residing in Teesra Pusta, Usman Pur. Later, 'N' vacated her tenanted premises and rented a room in another lane in the same area. She could not remember the exact date when 'N' had informed her about divorcing her husband Munna @ Junaid or when she had told her about his threats.
iii. However, she categorically denied the suggestion that 'N' never told her about the divorce or the threats from her ex-husband. She confirmed that she received the phone call from 'N' on her mobile number 9560937833, but could not remember 'N''s mobile number or the exact time when she received the call. She denied the suggestion that she couldn't remember 'N''s number because 'N' never actually called her.
iv. Regarding her visit to RML Hospital, she clarified that no police DLND010050332021 Page 22 of 80 SC 194/2021 STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID FIR No.12/2020 (Barakhamba Road) U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 officer accompanied her initially, but police officials did meet her there. She entered the hospital through the emergency entrance but could not remember 'N''s specific room or ward number. She denied the suggestion that she couldn't remember the room number because she never actually visited the hospital. v. She confirmed that when she met 'N' in the hospital, 'N' was able to talk with her and provided details about her injuries and the incident involving her husband. She categorically denied all suggestions that she was deposing falsely at the instance of police officials, that she never accompanied 'N' to Patiala House Court or the place of incident, or that her entire testimony was false. 2.9. PW-9: Ct. Gaurav9, No. 1762/ND A) Detailed Deposition Summary:
i. PW-9 provided the most comprehensive and detailed testimony about the entire investigation process from the perspective of a constable who was present throughout the crucial stages of the case. On the intervening night of 18-19.03.2020, he was posted as Constable at PS Barakhamba Road and was on emergency duty along with SI Lokesh from 08:00 PM to 08:00 AM. This 12- hour night duty shift placed him at the center of the investigation from its very beginning.
ii. Upon receipt of DD No. 2A by the IO, he along with the IO and W/Ct. Jyoti reached the place of occurrence which was located 9 Posted at: PS Parliament Street;
Date of Examination: 30.08.2024 DLND010050332021 Page 23 of 80 SC 194/2021 STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID FIR No.12/2020 (Barakhamba Road) U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 behind Pind Baluchi Restaurant near Bhogal Chole Wala, Connaught Place. At the crime scene, he personally observed one red-colored dupatta which was partly burnt and a small 250ml bottle lying there. The condition of the dupatta clearly indicated it had been damaged by some chemical substance, while the bottle appeared to be the container that had held the acid used in the attack.
iii. Upon making inquiries from people present in the area, it was revealed that the injured person had been taken to RML Hospital by PCR van. The IO decided to leave him at the spot to guard and preserve the crime scene while he and W/Ct. Jyoti proceeded to RML Hospital to meet the victim and gather initial information about the incident.
iv. After some time, the IO and W/Ct. Jyoti returned to the spot, and coincidentally the Mobile Crime Team also reached there. The Crime Team conducted a thorough inspection of the spot and the photographer took detailed photographs from various angles to document the scene. The IO then took formal possession of both the red-colored dupatta and the small plastic bottle. These crucial pieces of evidence were converted into two different pullandas (sealed packets) and taken into police possession, sealed with the seal of 'LK' (IO's initials). After the sealing process was completed, the seal was handed over to him for safekeeping. v. Following the crime scene documentation, the IO prepared a DLND010050332021 Page 24 of 80 SC 194/2021 STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID FIR No.12/2020 (Barakhamba Road) U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 Tehrir and handed it over to him with specific instructions for registration of the case. He took the Tehrir to the police station and handed it over to the Duty Officer who officially registered an FIR. After the FIR registration, a copy of the FIR and the original Tehrir were handed back to him, and he returned to the spot and delivered these documents to the IO. vi. The investigation then shifted focus to locating and apprehending the accused. They all proceeded to RML Hospital in search of the accused, but he was not found there. The injured victim 'N' provided crucial information that the accused Munna @ Junaid might be present in the area of Darya Ganj as he worked as a Rickshaw Puller. Acting on this information, they went to Darya Ganj and met the accused's brother Phool Babu at house No. 1905, Suiwalan, Darya Ganj.
vii. Phool Babu informed them that Munna was not at home and explained that as he was a Rickshaw Puller, he sometimes slept outside on the footpath in the area. Phool Babu was joined in the investigation to help locate his brother. As they departed from his house and moved towards a nearby crossing, accused Munna was spotted hiding in the area. Upon seeing the police party and his brother Phool Babu, the accused attempted to escape but was chased and successfully apprehended.
viii. At approximately 07:30 AM, they all returned to RML Hospital along with the apprehended accused where injured 'N' DLND010050332021 Page 25 of 80 SC 194/2021 STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID FIR No.12/2020 (Barakhamba Road) U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was still admitted and undergoing treatment. Upon seeing the accused Munna @ Junaid, she immediately identified him as the same person who had thrown acid upon her face and caused her injuries. This identification was crucial for establishing the accused's involvement in the crime.
ix. Following the victim's identification, accused Munna @ Junaid was formally arrested with proper documentation through an arrest memo. He was personally searched according to legal procedures, and a personal search memo was prepared. During interrogation, his disclosure statement was recorded by the IO. The IO also recorded a supplementary statement from injured 'N' regarding the identification and arrest of the accused. x. The accused was then joined in the investigation and was taken to point out the place of incident. At the crime scene, he pointed out the exact location where the incident had occurred, and a pointing out memo was prepared to document this procedure. The accused was then taken to RML Hospital for his mandatory medical examination and from there was brought to Patiala House Court where he was produced before the concerned court and one day police custody remand was obtained for further investigation.
xi. The investigation team also conducted searches for any associates of the accused in Darya Ganj and nearby areas who might have been involved in procuring the acid or assisting in the DLND010050332021 Page 26 of 80 SC 194/2021 STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID FIR No.12/2020 (Barakhamba Road) U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 crime, but no clues were found regarding any associate. After the police custody period, the accused was brought to the police station and subsequently produced in court the next day where he was remanded to judicial custody.
xii. During his testimony, he correctly identified the accused present in the court. The IO had recorded his detailed statement during the investigation. He confirmed his signatures on various seizure memos including those for the dupatta and plastic bottle. When case properties were shown to him in court, he successfully identified both the red dupatta in spoiled condition and the plastic bottle marked "Zitra Piyo Bindas Cola 250ml" as the same items that were seized from the crime spot.
B) Documents Proved:
i. Personal search memo of accused Ex. PW9/A (signed at point A) ii. Disclosure statement of accused - Ex. PW9/B (signed at point A) iii. Pointing out memo - Ex. PW9/C (signed at point A) iv. Seizure memo of dupatta - Ex. PW9/D (signed at point A) v. Seizure memo of plastic bottle - Ex. PW9/E (signed at point A) C) Exhibits Identified:
i. Red dupatta in spoiled condition - Ex. P2 (already exhibited) ii. Plastic bottle "Zitra Piyo Bindas Cola 250ml" - Ex. PW9/MO-1 D) Cross-Examination:DLND010050332021 Page 27 of 80 SC 194/2021
STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID FIR No.12/2020 (Barakhamba Road) U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 i. During extensive and detailed cross-examination conducted by Sh. Raj Tilak Guha Roy, learned counsel for the accused, PW-9 was thoroughly questioned about various aspects of the investigation, timings, procedures followed, and his personal involvement in the case.
ii. Timing and Initial Response: He confirmed that DD No. 2A was received at around 01:10 AM and they reached the crime spot within 5-10 minutes of receiving the information. He acknowledged that when they reached the spot, several public persons were present in the area, which was expected given the nature of the incident and its location in a commercial area. iii. Public Witnesses and Investigation Procedures: When questioned about whether the IO had given any notice to public persons or joined them as witnesses, he stated he did not remember whether the IO had given any notice to any public person. However, he confirmed that the IO had made inquiries about the injured person from one public person who informed them that the injured had been taken to RML Hospital. The defense counsel suggested that the IO had intentionally not recorded the statement of public persons in order to implicate the accused in a false case, but PW-9 categorically denied this suggestion, maintaining that there was no intentional omission or fabrication. iv. Crime Scene Management: He confirmed that he remained present at the spot when the IO and W/HC Jyoti had gone to RML DLND010050332021 Page 28 of 80 SC 194/2021 STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID FIR No.12/2020 (Barakhamba Road) U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 Hospital, fulfilling his duty of preserving the crime scene. He clarified that he had not made any inquiry from any public person during the absence of the IO, which was appropriate as he was following proper protocol by waiting for the investigating officer's return.
v. He stated that he could not remember the exact time when the IO and W/HC Jyoti returned to the spot from RML Hospital. Importantly, he testified that he had not seen any CCTV camera at the spot, which was relevant for the defense to understand why video evidence was not available. He also clarified that the IO had not called the Crime Team in his presence, and that the Crime Team and the IO along with W/HC Jyoti came to the spot at the same time. He estimated that the Crime Team took around 15-20 minutes to complete their documentation and photography work.
vi. FIR Registration Process: Regarding the FIR registration process, he acknowledged that he did not know the exact time when he left for the police station with the Rukka or when he returned back to the spot with the registered FIR copy. He confirmed that when he returned to the spot with the FIR copy, they immediately left for RML Hospital to continue the investigation.
vii. Hospital Procedures: When they reached RML Hospital for the second time, he remained standing outside while the IO and DLND010050332021 Page 29 of 80 SC 194/2021 STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID FIR No.12/2020 (Barakhamba Road) U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 W/HC Jyoti visited the victim inside. He testified that the IO had recorded the statement of the victim in his presence and hearing, though he stated he did not know exactly what was recorded by the IO. Crucially, he confirmed that the address and possible whereabouts of the accused were disclosed by the victim during this interaction.
viii.Search and Arrest in Darya Ganj: Regarding the search for the accused, he confirmed they reached Darya Ganj in the morning hours but could not specify the exact time. When questioned about procedural aspects, he confirmed that the IO did not call anyone from PS Darya Ganj to join the investigation, nor did the IO call or join any public witness during the arrest process. He noted that there were public persons present near the house of Phool Babu as his house was located near a market area, which explained the presence of people in the vicinity. ix. Arrest Process: He strongly denied the defense suggestion that he had not joined the investigation of the present case or that he had not gone to the area of Darya Ganj. He confirmed that they were searching for the accused in the lanes near the house of Phool Babu when they encountered the accused. He could not specify the exact time spent on the search for the accused but maintained that the arrest was made from the location as he had deposed. x. The defense counsel made several serious suggestions which PW-9 categorically denied: that the accused was not arrested DLND010050332021 Page 30 of 80 SC 194/2021 STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID FIR No.12/2020 (Barakhamba Road) U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 from the place deposed by him; that he was deposing falsely at the instance of the IO; that he had not actually joined the investigation; and that the entire sequence of events was fabricated. PW-9 maintained his testimony and denied all suggestions of falsification or misconduct in the investigation process.
xi. His cross-examination revealed a witness who, while unable to recall exact timings for events (which is understandable given the passage of time), was consistent in his core testimony about the key events, the discovery of evidence, the arrest of the accused, and the procedures followed during the investigation. 2.10. PW-10: Inspector Lokesh Kumar10, No. D-4693 A) Deposition Summary:
i. PW-10, the Investigating Officer in this case, provided the most comprehensive and authoritative testimony covering the entire investigation from start to finish. His testimony was crucial as he was responsible for conducting the investigation, collecting evidence, recording statements, and ensuring that all legal procedures were followed correctly.
ii. Initial Response and Crime Scene: On the intervening night of 18-19.03.2020, he was posted as Sub-Inspector at PS Barakhamba Road and was on night duty from 8:00 PM to 8:00 AM. At about 1:12 AM, DD No. 2A was received at the police 10 Designation: DIU District West, Delhi (Investigating Officer); Date of Examination: 28.03.2025 DLND010050332021 Page 31 of 80 SC 194/2021 STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID FIR No.12/2020 (Barakhamba Road) U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 station regarding the acid attack incident. Acting immediately on this information, he along with his associates Ct. Gaurav and W/Ct. Jyoti reached the place of occurrence which was located behind Pind Baluchi Restaurant near Bhogal Chole Wala, Connaught Place.
iii. Upon reaching the crime scene, he personally observed one red color dupatta which was partly burned and a small bottle of 250 ml capacity lying at the spot. These items were clearly connected to the incident and represented crucial physical evidence. Through inquiries made at the scene, it was revealed that the injured victim had already been taken to the hospital for medical treatment.
iv. Hospital Visit and Evidence Collection: After ensuring that Ct. Gaurav remained at the spot to preserve the crime scene, he along with W/Ct. Jyoti proceeded to RML Hospital where the victim was undergoing treatment. At the hospital, he collected the MLC (Medico-Legal Case) report of injured 'N', which documented her injuries and medical condition. The examining doctor handed over a sealed pullanda containing the clothes of the victim along with a sample seal, which he seized under DD No. 2A through a proper seizure memo.
v. Victim's Statement: At the hospital, he recorded the detailed statement of injured 'N' while she was conscious and fit to give a statement. This initial statement was crucial as it provided the DLND010050332021 Page 32 of 80 SC 194/2021 STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID FIR No.12/2020 (Barakhamba Road) U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 first detailed account of the incident, identified the accused, and established the motive for the attack. After recording the statement, he returned to the crime spot with W/Ct. Jyoti to continue the investigation.
vi. Crime Scene Processing: During his absence, he had sent a message to the crime team to reach the crime scene for technical examination. When he returned to the spot, the crime team had arrived and was ready to process the scene. The crime team conducted a thorough inspection of the spot, and the photographer clicked photographs of the scene from different angles to create a comprehensive visual record. The team in- charge took possession of the exhibits and handed them over to him, which he seized through proper seizure memos. The in- charge of the crime team also prepared and submitted a detailed crime scene report documenting all observations and findings. vii. FIR Registration: While the crime team was processing the scene, he prepared the rukka (preliminary report) and sent Ct. Gaurav to the police station for official FIR registration. After some time, Ct. Gaurav returned and handed over the copy of the registered FIR and the original rukka to him, completing the formal registration process.
viii.Investigation into Accused's Identity and Location : He along with W/Ct. Jyoti and Ct. Gaurav again reached RML Hospital and inquired the victim about the accused. She informed them DLND010050332021 Page 33 of 80 SC 194/2021 STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID FIR No.12/2020 (Barakhamba Road) U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 that accused Munna @ Junaid was her husband who had thrown acid on her. She also provided crucial information that the accused Munna might be present at his brother's house in the area of Darya Ganj, as he worked as a rickshaw puller in that area. ix. Search and Apprehension: Following the victim's information, they proceeded to Darya Ganj and met the accused's brother Phool Babu at house No. 1905, Suiwala, Darya Ganj. Phool Babu informed them that Munna was not at home but explained that as he was a rickshaw puller, he sometimes slept outside on footpaths in the nearby area. Phool Babu joined their search efforts, and as they moved towards a nearby crossing, they spotted Munna. Upon seeing the police party and his brother, the accused attempted to escape but was successfully apprehended. x. Post-Arrest Procedures: At approximately 7:00-7:30 AM, they returned to RML Hospital with the accused where injured 'N' was still admitted and undergoing treatment. Upon seeing accused Munna @ Junaid, she immediately identified him as the same person who had thrown acid upon her and injured her. This identification established the direct link between the accused and the crime.
xi. Following the victim's identification, accused Munna @ Junaid was formally arrested through a proper arrest memo. He was personally searched according to legal requirements, and a personal search memo was prepared. During interrogation, he DLND010050332021 Page 34 of 80 SC 194/2021 STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID FIR No.12/2020 (Barakhamba Road) U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 recorded the accused's disclosure statement. He also recorded a supplementary statement of injured 'N' documenting the identification process and any additional information. xii. Further Investigation Procedures: The accused was joined in the investigation and was taken to point out the place of the incident. At the crime scene, he prepared a pointing out memo documenting the accused's demonstration of how and where the incident occurred. The accused was then taken to RML Hospital for his mandatory medical examination and subsequently brought to Patiala House Court where he was produced before the concerned court and one day police custody remand was obtained for further investigation.
xiii.Extended Investigation: During the investigation, they also searched for any associates of the accused in Darya Ganj and nearby areas who might have been involved in procuring the acid or assisting in the crime, but no clues were found regarding any associate from whom the accused might have purchased the acid. After the police custody period, the accused was brought to the police station and on the next day was produced in court where he was remanded to judicial custody.
xiv. Additional Legal Procedures: On 04.05.2020, he moved an application for recording the statement of victim 'N' under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before a Magistrate. After the statement was recorded, he moved another application to obtain a copy of this DLND010050332021 Page 35 of 80 SC 194/2021 STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID FIR No.12/2020 (Barakhamba Road) U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 statement for the case file. Subsequently, he took the victim along with her friend to the place of incident where he prepared a detailed site plan at the instance of victim 'N', showing the exact location and circumstances of the incident. He also recorded supplementary statements of the victim and her friend under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
xv. Technical Investigation: During the course of investigation, he collected Call Detail Records (CDRs) and Customer Application Forms (CAF) of both the victim and accused, which were placed on record to establish communication patterns and locations. He sent all sealed exhibits and case property to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for scientific examination and analysis. xvi.Case Completion: He collected the results from FSL and placed them on record. After recording statements of all witnesses and completing all aspects of the investigation, he prepared the charge sheet of the present case and filed it before the Hon'ble Court.
xvii. Evidence Identification: During his testimony, when various case properties were shown to him in court, he successfully identified: the plastic bottle "Zitra Piyo Bindas Cola 250ml" as the same bottle seized from the spot; the red dupatta in spoiled condition as the same dupatta seized from the crime scene; the clothes of the victim (blue suit, red salwar, violet bra) as the same clothes handed over by the examining doctor at the hospital; and DLND010050332021 Page 36 of 80 SC 194/2021 STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID FIR No.12/2020 (Barakhamba Road) U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 the 8 photographs as the same photographs of the crime scene clicked by the photographer of the crime team. B) Documents Proved:
i. Rukka for FIR registration - Ex. PW10/A (signed at point A) ii. Application for victim's 164 Cr.P.C. statement - Ex. PW10/B (signed at point A) iii. Site plan prepared at victim's instance - Ex. PW10/C (signed at point A) C) Exhibits Identified:
i. Plastic bottle "Zitra Piyo Bindas Cola 250ml" - Ex. PW9/MO-1 (already exhibited) ii. Red dupatta in spoiled condition - Ex. P2 (already exhibited) iii. Victim's clothes - Ex. P1 (collectively) (already exhibited) iv. Crime scene photographs - Ex. PW3/A (collectively) (already exhibited) D) Cross-Examination:
i. PW-10 faced extensive and rigorous cross-examination by Sh. Raj Tilak Guha Roy, learned counsel for the accused, who challenged various aspects of the investigation, procedures followed, evidence collection, and the overall conduct of the case.
ii. Vehicle and Logistical Details: He confirmed that he and his associates reached the crime spot using an official police vehicle but could not recall the registration number of the vehicle. When DLND010050332021 Page 37 of 80 SC 194/2021 STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID FIR No.12/2020 (Barakhamba Road) U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 questioned about maintaining proper logbooks, he admitted he did not remember whether he made any log entry regarding the vehicle before leaving the station. He strongly denied the suggestion that he never actually reached the spot, maintaining that his inability to recall the log entry was not indicative of any procedural failure.
iii. Public Witnesses and Scene Management: Regarding the presence of public persons at the crime scene, he stated that he did not remember whether any public persons were available at the crime scene, noting that it was night time when the incident occurred. The defense counsel suggested that there were public persons present but he intentionally did not record their statements to falsely implicate the accused. PW-10 categorically denied this serious allegation, rejecting any suggestion of deliberate omission or manipulation of evidence. iv. Evidence Planting Allegations: One of the most serious allegations made by the defense was that he had planted the dupatta and plastic bottle at the spot. PW-10 vehemently denied this allegation, maintaining that the evidence was found exactly as he had described in his testimony. He explained that he had inquired from persons present near Janpath Road regarding the injured victim, and they informed him that a PCR van had reached there and taken the injured person to the hospital. While he admitted he did not record the name of this informant or make DLND010050332021 Page 38 of 80 SC 194/2021 STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID FIR No.12/2020 (Barakhamba Road) U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 him a witness, he denied that this was intentional misconduct to falsely implicate the accused.
v. Timeline and Response: He provided specific timing details: they received the call from the control room at 1:12 AM and reached the spot around 1:15-1:20 AM. He could not recall the exact time when they reached the hospital but confirmed that when he recorded the victim's statement, she was conscious and fit to give a statement. He denied the suggestion that she was not fit for statement-taking at that time.
vi. CCTV Evidence: An important aspect of the cross-examination concerned CCTV footage. He confirmed that he had inquired from the nearby restaurant regarding CCTV footage. He specifically stated that Pind Baluchi restaurant had CCTV cameras installed but only inside the restaurant, not outside where the incident occurred behind the restaurant. He denied the suggestion that CCTV cameras were installed at the incident location but he deliberately did not collect them to conceal evidence.
vii. FIR Registration Process: Regarding the FIR registration timeline, he testified that he sent the rukka at 3:10 AM through Ct. Gaurav, but could not remember the exact time when Ct. Gaurav returned to the spot with the written FIR. He denied the suggestion that the victim did not disclose the name of accused Munna @ Junaid in her statement recorded at the hospital.DLND010050332021 Page 39 of 80 SC 194/2021
STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID FIR No.12/2020 (Barakhamba Road) U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 viii.Accused's Address and Location: He acknowledged that the victim did not provide the complete proper address of the accused in her first statement. However, he clarified that she had verbally informed them about the general area where the accused could be found (Darya Ganj area where he worked as a rickshaw puller). He denied the suggestion that the victim never informed them about the whereabouts of accused Munna @ Junaid. ix. Arrest Procedures: He could not recall the exact time when they reached Darya Ganj in search of the accused but maintained that the apprehension was made from Darya Ganj as he had testified. The defense suggested that he did not actually arrest the accused from Darya Ganj, which would explain why no public person was made a witness to the arrest. PW-10 denied this suggestion completely.
x. Evidence Integrity: The defense challenged the integrity of the physical evidence, suggesting that the exhibits taken from the spot were not properly sealed and were not in proper condition. PW-10 denied these allegations. He also rejected the more serious suggestion that all exhibits were planted by him and his team at the spot, maintaining that all evidence was genuine and properly collected and preserved.
xi. Site Plan and Documentation: The defense suggested that he had prepared the site plan on his own without the instance of the victim. PW-10 denied this, confirming that the site plan was DLND010050332021 Page 40 of 80 SC 194/2021 STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID FIR No.12/2020 (Barakhamba Road) U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 prepared at the victim's specific instance and direction, with her pointing out the exact locations and circumstances of the incident.
xii. Overall Conduct: Finally, the defense made broad allegations questioning his entire conduct of the investigation. They suggested that he was deposing falsely and that all documents were prepared while sitting at the police station rather than at the actual locations. PW-10 categorically denied all these suggestions, maintaining that his investigation was conducted properly, all procedures were followed correctly, and his testimony was truthful.
xiii.Throughout the cross-examination, while PW-10 acknowledged certain limitations in his memory regarding specific timings and minor details (which is understandable given the time elapsed), he remained firm on all crucial aspects of the investigation, evidence collection, arrest procedures, and the overall conduct of the case. His responses demonstrated a professional approach to the investigation and a commitment to following proper legal procedures.
xiv. In terms of the statement of the accused Munna @ Junaid, recorded under Section 294 Cr.P.C. on 07.02.2025, the genuineness of the following documents was admitted by the accused, and it was further stated that no objection was raised by him to the exemption of their respective authors/signatories from DLND010050332021 Page 41 of 80 SC 194/2021 STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID FIR No.12/2020 (Barakhamba Road) U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 formal examination, and that the said documents be read in evidence in accordance with the provisions of Section 294 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the statement of prosecutrix 'N', recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by the then Duty Metropolitan Magistrate, PHC, dated 04.05.2020 (Ex. A-1), the MLC of 'N' from RML Hospital dated 18.03.2020 along with the medical opinion given by Dr. Ashok Reddy (Ex. A-2), the ID, location chart and CDR details of mobile numbers 9958475864 and 7428401171 issued by Bharti Airtel Ltd. (Ex. A-3 collectively), FIR No. 12/2020 dated 19.03.2020, PS Barakhamba Road, as recorded by ASI Mahipal Singh, along with endorsement and certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act (Ex. A-4 collectively), the RFSL report bearing No. RFSL/DLH/251/CHEM/136/20 dated 31.07.2020 prepared by Dr. Pallavi Choudhary along with opinion (Ex. A-5), and the record of MHC(M), PS Barakhamba Road pertaining to Register No. 19 and the dispatch and return of case property to and from RFSL (Ex. A-6), were directed to be read in evidence without formal proof, and the respective authors/signatories thereof were dispensed with from examination, in view of the admission made by the accused.
3. STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 3.1. The accused Munna Junaid S/o Mohd. Junaid Sheikh was examined DLND010050332021 Page 42 of 80 SC 194/2021 STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID FIR No.12/2020 (Barakhamba Road) U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 under section 313 Cr.P.C. and the substance of all incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence was put to him. He admitted that PW-2 'N' was his wife and that he had subsequently divorced her as per Muslim law, but in respect of all other material incriminating circumstances emerging from the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and documents proved on record, he denied the same and stated the evidence to be incorrect.
3.2. He further stated that the witnesses had deposed against him as they were interested witnesses, asserted that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. When asked whether he wished to lead any defence evidence, he declined and categorically stated that he does not wish to lead defence evidence.
4. ARGUMENTS 4.1. Submissions of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor: Sh. Mukul Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, addressed the Court at length and made the following submissions urging conviction of the accused Munna @ Junaid under Section 326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:
A) The learned Addl. PP submitted that the prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through the testimony of nine witnesses and the documentary and material exhibits placed on record. The case arises out of FIR No. 12/2020, P.S. Barakhamba Road, in which the accused is charged with having voluntarily caused grievous hurt by throwing acid upon the complainant/victim DLND010050332021 Page 43 of 80 SC 194/2021 STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID FIR No.12/2020 (Barakhamba Road) U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 Smt. 'N' -- his former wife -- on the intervening night of 18th-19th March 2020, at approximately 11:00-11:15 PM, at Janpath, Connaught Place, New Delhi.
B) The learned Addl. PP submitted that the testimony of PW-2, Smt. 'N', the victim and complainant, is the clinching piece of evidence in the present case. The victim has deposed clearly and categorically before the Court that the accused approached her at her place of work, uttered the threat "Bachche chhodne ko bola tha, tune chhode nahi, tu meri nahi ho saki to kisi aur ki bhi nahi hone dunga ", and immediately thereafter threw acid from a plastic bottle upon her face, neck, chest, and arm, causing grievous burn injuries. Her version is consistent, cogent, and has remained unshaken despite extensive cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused.
The minor inconsistencies elicited during cross-examination are merely peripheral and do not affect the core substratum of her testimony.
C) It was submitted that the testimony of the victim finds complete corroboration in the following independent and reliable evidence:
i. Medical Evidence (Ex. PW7/A -- MLC): The Medico-Legal Certificate of RML Hospital, proved through PW-7, Dr. Akhilesh Thole, SMO, establishes that the victim was brought to the hospital at 11:40 PM on 18.03.2020 with history of chemical burn/acid assault and was suffering from grievous burn injuries on her face, neck, chest, and arm. The injuries are consistent with DLND010050332021 Page 44 of 80 SC 194/2021 STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID FIR No.12/2020 (Barakhamba Road) U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 the nature of the attack as described by the victim. ii. Forensic Evidence (RFSL Report -- Ex. A-5): The FSL report of RFSL, Chanakya Puri, proved through the record, establishes the presence of acid/corrosive residues on the victim's clothing (Ex. P1 -- blue suit, red salwar, violet bra) and the red dupatta (Ex. P2) recovered from the crime scene, as well as on the plastic bottle (Ex. PW9/MO-1 -- 250 ml Zitaara Piyo Bindas Cola bottle) seized from the spot. This scientific evidence conclusively proves that the substance used was acid, fully in consonance with the prosecution's case.
iii. Scene of Crime Evidence: PW-1, SI Puran Ram, Crime Team In- charge, and PW-3, HC Ravinder Kumar, Photographer, proved the Scene of Crime inspection report (Ex. PW1/1) and 8 crime scene photographs (Ex. PW3/A collectively), which document the physical condition of the crime scene and the recovery of material objects therefrom.
iv. Investigative Witnesses: PW-4, W/HC Jyoti, and PW-9, Ct. Gaurav, who were present throughout the investigation, have corroborated every material step of the investigation -- from the recovery of objects at the scene, to the visit to RML Hospital, to the arrest of the accused and his identification by the victim at the hospital itself.
D) The learned Addl. PP further submitted that the identification of the accused by the victim at RML Hospital is a reliable, spontaneous, DLND010050332021 Page 45 of 80 SC 194/2021 STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID FIR No.12/2020 (Barakhamba Road) U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and credible form of identification, having been made immediately upon the accused being brought to the hospital. There is no basis to doubt this identification, as the victim was previously married to the accused for approximately 14-15 years and knew him intimately. The accused himself does not dispute that he knew the victim or that they had been previously married.
E) It was urged that the motive for the commission of the offence is clearly established on record. The accused had pronounced divorce under Muslim personal law and had made prior threats against the victim, saying that "Agar tu meri nahi ho sakti to kisi ki bhi nahi ho sakegi" (If you cannot be mine, you cannot be anyone's). These threats are proved not only through the testimony of PW-2 (the victim) but are independently corroborated by PW-8, Smt. Sita Goswami, the victim's friend, who deposed that the victim had informed her of these threats even before the incident took place. The prior threats and the motive of revenge/jealousy arising from the marital discord directly establish the requisite intention and knowledge under Section 326A IPC.
F) The learned Addl. PP submitted that the conduct of the accused in attempting to flee upon seeing the police party in the early hours of 19.03.2020 in the Darya Ganj area is a circumstance strongly indicative of a guilty conscience and must be weighed against the accused.
G) It was argued that the defence plea of false implication is wholly DLND010050332021 Page 46 of 80 SC 194/2021 STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID FIR No.12/2020 (Barakhamba Road) U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 unsubstantiated and has been completely demolished during the course of trial. No evidence of any kind -- whether in the form of documentary material, witness testimony, or otherwise -- has been led by the accused in his defence under Section 233 Cr.P.C. to support the bald assertion of false implication. The accused examined no defence witness and placed no document on record. The mere denial of the allegations under Section 313 Cr.P.C. does not constitute any defence.
H) Summing up, the learned Addl. PP contended that all three essential ingredients of Section 326A IPC stand proved beyond reasonable doubt: (a) that the victim sustained grievous hurt as a result of an acid attack; (b) that the acid was thrown upon the victim by the accused; and (c) that the accused acted with the requisite intent and knowledge. The prosecution has discharged its burden of proof beyond any reasonable doubt, and accordingly the learned APP prayed that the accused Munna @ Junaid be convicted under Section 326A IPC and awarded appropriate sentence as provided under the said section.
4.2. Submissions of the learned Counsel for the Accused: Sh. N.K. Jha, learned counsel for the accused Munna @ Junaid, addressed the Court at length during final arguments and relied upon the written arguments dated 22.04.2026, while supplementing them with the following oral submissions urging acquittal of the accused. It is noted that the written arguments, while filed at the stage of final arguments after full trial, DLND010050332021 Page 47 of 80 SC 194/2021 STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID FIR No.12/2020 (Barakhamba Road) U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 inadvertently carry the language of discharge; however, the substance and tenor of the said arguments and the oral submissions made before this Court are clearly directed towards seeking acquittal of the accused, upon the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt:
A) The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the entire prosecution case rests upon the solitary, uncorroborated, and interested testimony of the complainant/victim Smt. 'N', who is the former wife of the accused. It was urged that the testimony of a single witness -- particularly one who is the most interested party in the proceedings -- cannot form the sole basis for recording a conviction, especially in a serious case under Section 326A IPC which carries a minimum sentence of ten years' rigorous imprisonment. The prosecution was obligated to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt through reliable, consistent, and sufficient evidence, which it has manifestly failed to do. B) The learned counsel submitted that the prosecution case rests substantially on the version of the complainant/injured, which is seriously disputed by the accused. PW-2 has made significant admissions during cross-examination which cast grave doubt on the reliability of her testimony. She admitted that she could not recall the names and addresses of the six shops where she worked, that she could not describe the bottle from which the acid was thrown, and that there is no independent eyewitness to the incident. A conviction DLND010050332021 Page 48 of 80 SC 194/2021 STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID FIR No.12/2020 (Barakhamba Road) U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in a case of this gravity cannot be sustained on the basis of such evidence.
C) It was further submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish the crucial link between the accused and the act of acid throwing through any independent, reliable, or conclusive evidence. While the FSL report confirms the presence of acid on the exhibits, it does not and cannot establish that it was the accused who threw the acid upon the victim. The identity of the perpetrator remains unsupported by any independent eyewitness account or conclusive forensic analysis linking the accused to the crime. The acid-throwing, if at all committed, may have been committed by any person, and the material on record does not exclude the possibility of false implication.
D) The learned counsel for the accused drew the Court's attention to the admitted circumstances suggesting a motive for false implication on the part of the complainant. PW-2 herself admitted during cross-
examination that there had been a quarrel between her and the accused at the time of divorce, approximately one month prior to the incident. The accused has a specific and credible case that the complainant had threatened during this quarrel to falsely implicate him, and that the present FIR is the actualization of that threat. The complainant also admitted that she had demanded money from the accused and there were disputes between them prior to the incident. These circumstances, taken together, establish a strong and plausible DLND010050332021 Page 49 of 80 SC 194/2021 STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID FIR No.12/2020 (Barakhamba Road) U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 motive for the complainant to have lodged a false case against the accused.
E) The learned counsel further attacked the identification of the accused by submitting that the identification was made by the victim at the hospital, in the absence of any Test Identification Parade (TIP), and that such informal identification by a witness who is a highly interested party and former spouse cannot be treated as reliable proof of identity. The accused has consistently maintained that he had no role in the commission of the incident and has been falsely implicated.
F) It was argued that the investigation in the present case is tainted and unreliable. No independent public witness was joined by the Investigating Officer at the scene of crime despite the admitted presence of public persons in the area at the time. No effort was made to ascertain or record the statements of bystanders or workers in the commercial area of Janpath/Connaught Place who might have been eyewitnesses to the incident. The deliberate non-examination of public witnesses is a serious infirmity which renders the prosecution case highly suspect and lends credence to the defence plea of false implication.
G) The learned counsel submitted that the medical evidence does not specifically establish the type of acid used or conclusively connect the acid to the accused. PW-7, Dr. Akhilesh Thole, himself conceded during cross-examination that he was not aware of the specific type DLND010050332021 Page 50 of 80 SC 194/2021 STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID FIR No.12/2020 (Barakhamba Road) U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 of acid or chemical substance used to cause the injuries. The absence of any evidence as to the procurement of acid by the accused, or any recovery of acid from his possession, constitutes a material lacuna in the prosecution case.
H) The learned counsel further submitted that the accused suffers from a physical disability -- a leg problem -- and the suggestion that he could have thrown acid with the precision described by the prosecution and then fled the spot at speed is inherently improbable. This circumstance lends further credence to the defence case. I) Sh. N.K. Jha concluded his arguments by emphasizing that in criminal law, the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt lies entirely upon the prosecution throughout the trial and never shifts to the accused. He urged that this Court keep in mind the following submissions:
the prosecution story lacks the stamp of truth, suffers from material gaps, is not corroborated by any trustworthy independent evidence, and relies wholly upon the word of an interested and partisan witness. The accused, therefore, deserves the benefit of doubt and is entitled to acquittal.
J) In view of the aforesaid submissions, Sh. N.K. Jha, learned counsel for the accused, prayed that accused Munna @ Junaid be acquitted of the charge under Section 326A IPC in the present case.
5. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS 5.1. Upon a thorough examination of the entirety of the oral testimonies DLND010050332021 Page 51 of 80 SC 194/2021 STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID FIR No.12/2020 (Barakhamba Road) U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 of PW-1 through PW-10, the documentary evidence, the material exhibits, the forensic science report, the electronic evidence in the form of Call Detail Records (CDR), and the medical evidence, in conjunction with the written arguments filed by the defence and the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 29.07.2025, this Court proceeds to deliberate upon and determine: whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of the accused, Munna @ Junaid, beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Section 326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)?
5.2. Section 326A IPC penalises whoever voluntarily causes grievous hurt by means of acid, or by means of any corrosive substance, with the intent to cause, or with the knowledge that such act is likely to cause, permanent or partial damage or deformity or disfigurement to any part or parts of the body of such person. The essential ingredients of the offence are: (i) the voluntary act of causing hurt; (ii) the causation of grievous hurt, as defined under Section 320 IPC, which must be of a permanently disfiguring or disabling nature; (iii) the medium of the hurt must be acid or a corrosive substance; and (iv) the presence of the requisite mens rea in the form of intent or knowledge that the act is likely to cause permanent disfigurement or disability. 5.3. The Supreme Court of India has consistently held that in acid attack cases, mens rea may be inferred from surrounding circumstances, including established motive, the deliberateness of the act, and the perpetrator's own words uttered at the time of the attack. The case of DLND010050332021 Page 52 of 80 SC 194/2021 STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID FIR No.12/2020 (Barakhamba Road) U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 Laxmi v. Union of India [(2014) 4 SCC 427] and Parivartan Kendra v. Union of India [(2016) 3 SCC 571] are the seminal authorities on this point.
5.4. The Testimony of "N" (PW-2) -- The Victim/Complainant A) The prosecution's case is primarily anchored upon the direct ocular testimony of the victim/complainant, "N" (PW-2), examined on 29.03.2022. In cases of acid attack, which by their very nature are committed without the presence of independent witnesses, the victim's testimony is of paramount evidentiary value. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the testimony of a victim in a sexual assault or a gender-based violence case is entitled to great weight, and the absence of independent eyewitnesses does not, by itself, impair the prosecution's case. The same principle applies, with even greater force, to acid attack cases, where the attack is typically perpetrated in the dark, by stealth or sudden ambush, against a lone individual. Reference may be had to Allarakha K. Mansuri v. State of Gujarat [(2002) 3 SCC 57] and State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain [(1990) 1 SCC 550]. B) "N" deposed with crystalline clarity that on the intervening night of 18-19.03.2020, at approximately 11:00-11:15 PM, she was returning home from work -- she being employed as a Safai Karamchari (cleaner) in six shops in the Connaught Place-Janpath area -- when the accused Munna @ Junaid accosted her behind KFC, Janpath, Connaught Place. She stated that immediately before DLND010050332021 Page 53 of 80 SC 194/2021 STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID FIR No.12/2020 (Barakhamba Road) U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 the acid attack, the accused uttered the words: "Bachche chhodne ko bola tha, tune chhode nahi, tu meri nahi ho saki to kisi aur ki bhi nahi hone dunga" -- meaning, "You were told to leave the children, you didn't leave them; if you cannot be mine, then I will not let you be anyone else's." It is of the highest significance that these threatening words, spoken in the same breath as the acid was hurled, constitute the declared motive of the accused, voiced by himself, in the presence of the very victim, at the very moment of the commission of the offence. This evidence of prior threat uttered at the time of the attack is wholly consistent with the deposition of PW-8 (Smt. Sita Goswami), who confirmed that the same threats had been communicated to her by "N" on the very night after the attack. C) "N" further deposed that immediately after the accused threw acid onto her face, neck, chest, and arm from a small bottle he was carrying, she experienced an intense burning sensation. She attempted to wipe her face with her dupatta (Ex. P2), but the burning intensified and her skin began to peel off. She thereupon ran to the PCR van stationed 20-30 yards away at Janpath, reported the attack to the PCR personnel, and was immediately transported to RML Hospital, where MLC No. 63043/244799 (Ex. PW7/A) was prepared by Dr. Soma Dey. This account is entirely corroborated by the MLC, the chemical analysis of her clothing, the photographic evidence of the crime scene, and the depositions of multiple police witnesses. D) The defence, during extensive cross-examination of "N", attempted DLND010050332021 Page 54 of 80 SC 194/2021 STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID FIR No.12/2020 (Barakhamba Road) U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to impute false implication -- suggesting that she had, at the time of the divorce about a month prior to the incident, threatened to implicate the accused in a false case; that she had demanded money; and that the mobile phone, which could have established her communication on the night of the attack, was deliberately destroyed by her. "N" categorically denied all these suggestions. The defence also pointed to certain minor inconsistencies, such as her inability to recall the exact date, the precise description of the acid bottle, or the names of the shops where she worked. However, it is well established in law that a witness who has survived a grievous acid attack -- particularly an illiterate, working-class woman who endured severe physical pain, disfigurement, and psychological trauma on the night of the incident -- cannot be expected to retain a photographic memory of peripheral details. As held by the Supreme Court in Rameshbhai Chandubhai Rathod v. State of Gujarat [(2011) 2 SCC 764], minor discrepancies in the testimony of a witness who has undergone severe trauma are natural, and if anything, lend authenticity to the testimony rather than detracting from it. The core of "N"'s deposition -- the identity of the accused, the precise words he uttered, the manner of the attack, her immediate flight to the PCR van, and the subsequent identification of the accused at the hospital
-- remains consistent, unimpeached, and wholly credible across every forum: the initial complaint, the MLC history, the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and the court testimony.
DLND010050332021 Page 55 of 80 SC 194/2021STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID FIR No.12/2020 (Barakhamba Road) U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 5.5. Admissibility and Evidentiary Weight Under Section 6, Indian Evidence Act -- Res Gestae A) This Court deems it necessary, at this juncture, to address a doctrine of immense importance to the present case -- the doctrine of res gestae -- which renders several items of evidence directly admissible as forming part of the same transaction, independent of any hearsay objection.
B) Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, reads: "Facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction, are relevant, whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places ." The principle of res gestae rests on the concept of spontaneity -- that certain statements and acts, made or done in the immediate aftermath of a startling event, are so closely connected to that event in time, place, and continuity of action that they are taken to form part of the same transaction and are therefore admissible as an exception to the rule against hearsay. The Supreme Court has elaborated this doctrine in Sukhar v. State of U.P. [(1999) 9 SCC 507], holding that a statement made immediately after an incident, under the stress of the excitement it produces, without time for deliberation or concoction, is admissible under Section 6 as part of the same transaction. C) Statement to the PCR Personnel and Investigating Officers: In the present case, "N", immediately after the acid was hurled upon her and her skin began to peel off, ran to the PCR van stationed a mere DLND010050332021 Page 56 of 80 SC 194/2021 STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID FIR No.12/2020 (Barakhamba Road) U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 20-30 yards from the spot. The PCR personnel observed her disfigured and burning condition, washed her face with water, and transported her to RML Hospital. The communication made by "N" to the PCR personnel -- identifying the attack as an acid throw by her former husband -- was made within minutes of the attack itself, in a condition of acute physical pain, shock, and distress, with the burning acid still acting upon her body. There is no gap, no interval of reflection, no opportunity for deliberation or concoction whatsoever between the event and this communication. Similarly, the statement recorded by PW-10, IO SI Lokesh Kumar, at RML Hospital -- even as "N" was undergoing medical treatment, with acid burns on her face, neck, chest, and arm -- was made within approximately 40 minutes of the attack. ASI Heera Lal is noted in the MLC as having brought "N" to the hospital at about 11:40 PM (Ex. PW7/A), establishing the immediate temporal nexus. The statements made by "N" to these police officials -- naming the accused, describing the manner of the attack, and disclosing his likely whereabouts at Darya Ganj -- all form part of the same transaction as the acid attack itself and are admissible under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act as res gestae. These are not hearsay -- they are the spontaneous utterances of the victim at the very scene of the occurrence and immediately thereafter, under conditions that wholly preclude the possibility of fabrication. D) Statement to PW-8 (Smt. Sita Goswami): Call Made During or DLND010050332021 Page 57 of 80 SC 194/2021 STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID FIR No.12/2020 (Barakhamba Road) U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 Immediately After the Attack: PW-8, Smt. Sita Goswami, deposed that on the intervening night of 18-19.03.2020, she received a telephone call from "N" in which "N" informed her that her former husband Munna had thrown acid upon her face in the Janpath area, that she had divorced Munna @ Junaid, and that he had previously threatened her with the very same words that PW-2 herself deposed in court -- "Agar tu meri nahi ho saki to kisi ki bhi nahi ho sakegi." PW-8 confirmed that she received this call on her mobile number 9560937833. This Court notes that PW-8 is an independent witness
-- a long-standing neighbour and close friend of "N", with no animus towards the accused and no interest in the outcome of the case. The call made by "N" to PW-8 on the very night of the incident
-- either during the attack or immediately after reaching the PCR van, while still in a state of acute distress and physical agony -- constitutes part of the res gestae of the incident. The communication was simultaneous with, or immediately connected to, the transaction of the acid attack. There was no interval of time during which "N" could have deliberated, consulted anyone, or fabricated a story. The excited utterance doctrine, which is the jurisprudential foundation of Section 6, applies with full force to such telephonic communications made in the immediate aftermath of a shocking and violent event. As the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 1 SCC 471] and as reaffirmed in Sukhar v. State of U.P. (supra), what is relevant is not the medium of communication DLND010050332021 Page 58 of 80 SC 194/2021 STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID FIR No.12/2020 (Barakhamba Road) U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 but the spontaneous and instinctive character of the statement made under the stress of the event. The call by "N" to PW-8 is not hearsay; it is a res gestae statement and is therefore directly admissible in evidence. Furthermore, there is no gap of concoction between the event and this communication -- "N" was at this very time suffering burning acid injuries and could have had no time, opportunity, or inclination to fabricate.
5.6. Consistency of Prosecution Evidence -- A Chain Without a Missing Link The prosecution evidence in the present case is remarkable not merely for its volume but for the precision with which each strand reinforces every other, creating a seamless and unbroken chain of proof. This Court analyses the converging strands as follows:
A) Convergence Between Initial Complaint, Statement Under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and Court Testimony : "N"'s initial statement recorded at RML Hospital (Ex. PW2/A) by IO SI Lokesh Kumar (PW-10) --
names the accused, describes the attack with precision, establishes the motive, and is consistent in all material particulars with her subsequent statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Ex. PW2/C, recorded on 04.05.2020 before a learned Link Magistrate at Patiala House Courts). The statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. occupies a position of special importance in the law of evidence. It is recorded by a Magistrate under judicial safeguards, after ensuring that the witness makes the statement voluntarily, without any DLND010050332021 Page 59 of 80 SC 194/2021 STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID FIR No.12/2020 (Barakhamba Road) U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 influence from the police. The fact that "N"'s Section 164 statement
-- recorded approximately six weeks after the incident, and thus with the benefit of time to reconsider -- is entirely consistent with her initial complaint made in a state of acute distress is of the highest significance. The Supreme Court has held in Tahsildar Singh v. State of U.P. [AIR 1959 SC 1012] and State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh [(1996) 2 SCC 384] that such consistency between the earliest complaint and the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is a powerful indicator of the truth and reliability of the victim's account. In the present case, the MLC history -- recorded by the treating doctor Dr. Soma Dey based on the information provided by the patient herself at the time of her admission -- also aligns perfectly with the initial complaint and the Section 164 statement. The MLC (Ex. PW7/A), noting the patient was brought by ASI Heera Lal with a history of "chemical burn/acid assault on 18.03.2020," is the most contemporaneous, medically-certified, and independent corroboration of "N"'s account of the manner and date of the attack.
B) Medical Evidence and Forensic Report: The MLC (Ex. PW7/A) records grievous burn injuries on "N"'s face, neck, chest, and arm caused by chemical/acid exposure. These injuries are consistent with the nature of the attack as deposed by "N". They qualify as "grievous hurt" within the meaning of Section 320 IPC -- specifically, permanent disfigurement of the face or head -- and thereby fulfil DLND010050332021 Page 60 of 80 SC 194/2021 STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID FIR No.12/2020 (Barakhamba Road) U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 one of the core ingredients of Section 326A IPC. The forensic report from the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory (RFSL), Chanakya Puri -- Report No. RFSL/DLH251/CHEM/136/20 dated 31.07.2020 (Ex. A-5), prepared by Dr. Pallavi Choudhary -- conclusively establishes the presence of acid residues on the victim's clothing (Ex. P1 collectively: blue suit, red salwar, violet bra), and on the red dupatta (Ex. P2) seized from the crime scene. The chemical was found to be "Hydrochloric Acid". This scientific and independent evidence places the chemical weapon at the scene of crime and upon the victim's body, eliminating any possibility of mistake, concoction, or false implication with respect to the nature of the weapon used. The transport of these exhibits to RFSL by PW-6 (Ct. Jitender) on 20.05.2020, duly acknowledged via RC No. 15/21/2020, establishes the unbroken chain of custody, together with the fact that seals on the parcels of "LK" and "CMO DR RML HOSPITAL ND" were found intact.
C) Crime Scene Evidence -- PW-1, PW-3, and PW-9: The testimonies of PW-1 (SI Puran Ram, Mobile Crime Team In-charge), PW-3 (ASI Ravinder Kumar, Photographer), and PW-9 (Ct. Gaurav) collectively establish that at the locus delicti -- behind Pind Baluchi Restaurant, Janpath, Connaught Place, New Delhi -- the following physical evidence was found: (i) a red-coloured dupatta in a burnt and acid-corroded condition (Ex. P2), lying at the exact spot; and (ii) an empty 250 ml plastic bottle of "Zitaara Piyo Bindas Cola" (Ex.
DLND010050332021 Page 61 of 80 SC 194/2021STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID FIR No.12/2020 (Barakhamba Road) U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 PW9/MO-1), emitting a strong odour of chemical/acid -- the very bottle used by the accused to throw acid upon "N". PW-1 prepared the Scene of Crime inspection report (Ex. PW1/1) and handed it over to the IO. PW-3 clicked 10 photographs (8 developed: Ex. PW3/A) from various angles, visually documenting the exact state of the crime scene. Both the dupatta and the bottle were seized by IO SI Lokesh Kumar through proper seizure memos (Ex. PW9/D and PW9/E) in the presence of PW-1 and PW-9, sealed with the seal of 'LK', and thereafter transmitted to RFSL. All three witnesses -- who were independent police officials with no prior connection to "N" or any animus towards the accused -- gave consistent and mutually corroborating testimony under examination-in-chief and maintained their positions categorically under cross-examination, denying all suggestions of fabrication or planting of evidence. This evidence independently corroborates "N"'s account of throwing her dupatta at the spot and the accused having left the bottle at the scene. D) Testimonies of the Police Witnesses Who Met "N" Immediately After the Incident -- Res Gestae: PW-4 (W/HC Jyoti) and PW-10 (IO SI Lokesh Kumar) are the police officials who met "N" at RML Hospital shortly after the incident. PW-4 deposed that DD No. 2A was received around 01:00 AM, she reached the crime scene within 15-20 minutes, and thereafter proceeded to RML Hospital with the IO where they found "N" under medical treatment. PW-10 deposed that he reached the spot at 1:15-1:20 AM and thereafter proceeded DLND010050332021 Page 62 of 80 SC 194/2021 STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID FIR No.12/2020 (Barakhamba Road) U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to RML Hospital, where he recorded "N"'s statement while she was conscious and fit to give a statement. The IO confirmed that "N" identified the assailant as Munna @ Junaid, described the attack, disclosed the motive, and informed the police of the accused's likely whereabouts in Darya Ganj -- all of which proved accurate and led directly to the arrest of the accused at dawn. The statements made by "N" to these police officers at RML Hospital -- made while in acute pain, with acid burns, in a hospital emergency ward, within approximately 40 minutes of the attack -- are directly admissible under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act as res gestae, as they were made in the immediate continuity of the transaction and with no opportunity for deliberation or concoction. As the Supreme Court held in Sukhar v. State of U.P. (supra), a statement made to a police officer who arrives immediately after the incident, while the victim is still under the stress of the event, forms part of the same transaction and is admissible as res gestae. The statements made by "N" to PW-4 and PW-10 -- who had no opportunity to falsely implicate any person, as the accused was still at large at that time -- are therefore fully admissible, truthful, and entitled to substantial evidentiary weight.
E) Statement to PW-8 (Smt. Sita Goswami) -- Independent Friend Witness and Res Gestae: PW-8, Smt. Sita Goswami, is the friend and long-standing neighbour of "N" who received a phone call from "N" on the very night of the incident. PW-8 deposed that "N" called her DLND010050332021 Page 63 of 80 SC 194/2021 STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID FIR No.12/2020 (Barakhamba Road) U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and informed her of the acid attack by Munna, mentioned the divorce, and repeated the specific threatening words spoken by the accused. PW-8 had known "N" for approximately 4-5 years, residing as neighbours in Teesra Pusta, Usman Pur. She visited "N" at RML Hospital the following morning and subsequently accompanied her to the crime scene and to Patiala House Courts for the recording of the Section 164 statement. Under cross- examination, PW-8 maintained that "N" had indeed called her and that she had indeed received this call on her mobile 9560937833. This fact is corroborated by CDR of complainant/victim wherein, a call is there from complainant to phone number 9560937833 for 55 seconds at 00:44:07 hours on 19.03.2020 from, RML Hospital (location). The defence suggestion that she was a planted or tutored witness is not borne out by any material on record. PW-8 is an illiterate woman who had no interest in the outcome of this case, no prior dealing with the police, and no motive to depose falsely. Her testimony regarding the call she received from "N" on the night of the incident is not hearsay -- it is the direct testimony of a witness narrating what she personally heard from the victim in real time, under conditions of extreme distress, constituting part of the res gestae of the transaction. There is no gap between the attack and this call; there is no interval during which "N" could have fabricated this account. The spontaneity of the call, the content of the communication (which matches precisely with "N"'s deposition in DLND010050332021 Page 64 of 80 SC 194/2021 STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID FIR No.12/2020 (Barakhamba Road) U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 court, the Section 164 statement, the initial complaint, and the MLC history), and the absence of any interest on PW-8's part, render her testimony credible beyond question.
F) CDR Evidence -- Electronic Proof Placing Both the Accused and the Complainant at the Scene of the Offence, and the Complainant's Subsequent Journey to RML Hospital:
i. The IO, PW-10/SI Lokesh Kumar, issued a Notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C. dated 11.05.2020 to the Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Limited, D-184, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi, seeking the Call Detail Records (CDR), Customer Application Forms (CAF), Cell ID/Location Charts, and Certificates under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, in respect of two mobile numbers:
(i) 9958475864, disclosed as the mobile number of the complainant "N"; and (ii) 7428401171, disclosed as the mobile number of the accused Munna @ Junaid. Bharti Airtel Limited, through its Nodal Officer, furnished the CDRs for both numbers for the period 18.03.2020 (8:00 PM) to 19.03.2020 (4:00 AM), along with the respective CAFs and a duly executed Section 65-
B certificate (Ex. A-3 collectively; being admitted by accused u/s 294 CrPC). The CDRs of both subscribers, when read with the Cell ID master address chart, provide an independently verifiable electronic narrative of the movements of both the accused and the complainant on the night of the incident.
ii. Identity of Subscribers: The CAF for mobile number DLND010050332021 Page 65 of 80 SC 194/2021 STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID FIR No.12/2020 (Barakhamba Road) U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 9958475864 identifies the subscriber as victim "N", W/o Munna Babu-- which corresponds to the address of the complainant "N". The CAF for mobile number 7428401171 identifies the subscriber as Munnababu, S/o Mohammad Jainul Haq), with the local address as 1923, Gali Kallu Wali, Suiwalan, Delhi, and the local reference as his brother Phool Babu (mobile 8130245846) at the same Suiwalan, Central Delhi. The IMSI for the accused's SIM is 354010094660490 and the IMEI of his handset is 863267041140810.
iii. The Cell ID Master Chart: Key Addresses: The Cell ID-wise address chart certified by Bharti Airtel Limited (Ex. A-3) is the indispensable key to translating the raw CDR data into physical locations. The relevant Cell IDs and their certified addresses are as under:
Cell ID Certified Physical Address / Location Zone 151.3031 / Mr. Rakesh Sachdeva, 84, Janpath Guest House, Tolstoy Marg, New 151.3032 / Delhi 151.3033 151.9264 / British Motors, Connaught Place, Delhi 151.9262 151.24301 BJP HQ, 6A, Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Marg, Sansad Marg Area, New Delhi -- 110002 151.28953 Janpath / Connaught Place corridor 111.28961 / 712, Chandni Mahal, Daryaganj, Delhi 111.28963 DLND010050332021 Page 66 of 80 SC 194/2021 STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID FIR No.12/2020 (Barakhamba Road) U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 111.13728 H. No-1940, Chunna Mal Utewali Gali, Near Deliate Cinema, Chavri Bazar, Asif Ali Road, Delhi-323001 111.31921 3/8, Asaf Ali Road, Near HDFC Bank, New Delhi-110002 111.55448 Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Vikram Nagar 110.46826 NDMC Complaint Centre, Clive Square, New Delhi 110.761 Ancillary Building, Barakhamba Road Metro Station, Barakhamba Road, C.P., New Delhi 110.43597 Near Parking, Gate No-5, RML Hospital, New Delhi 110.28979 / DR. RML Hospital, Near Baba Kharak Singh Marg, New Delhi 110.28975 / 110.28974 The geographic logic of these Cell IDs is self-evident: towers 151.3031-151.3033 cover the Janpath/Connaught Place zone (the crime scene area); towers 111.28961/111.28963 cover the Daryaganj-Chandni Mahal belt (the accused's residential area);
and towers 110.43597, 110.28979/75/74 cover RML Hospital and its immediate environs (the destination of "N" after the attack).
iv. CDR of the Complainant "N" (Mobile No. 9958475864):
Presence at Janpath/Connaught Place and Subsequent Journey to RML Hospital: The CDR of the complainant's mobile number 9958475864 for 18-19.03.2020 (Ex. A-3) discloses the following pattern of location and movement on the night of the incident:
(a) Complainant at Janpath-- Evening and Night of 18.03.2020:DLND010050332021 Page 67 of 80 SC 194/2021
STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID FIR No.12/2020 (Barakhamba Road) U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 The complainant's CDR shows that from the evening of 18.03.2020 onwards, her mobile phone was consistently pinging the cell tower Cell ID 151.3031/151.3032, identified as the Janpath Guest House, Tolstoy Marg tower -- which covers the Janpath/Connaught Place area. This is precisely consistent with her deposition and Section 164 Cr.P.C.
statement, in which she states that on the night of 18.03.2020, after finishing her cleaning work at the shops, she was standing at Janpath, Connaught Place, at around 11:00-11:15 PM. The following CDR entries of the complainant are particularly significant:
Time Cell ID Location Call
(18.03.2020) Details
20:01:52 309.44697/309.4469 Kashmiri Gate area / en route Outgoing,
8 78 sec
20:14:56 111.7332 Abdul Hannan, Delhi Gate, Incoming,
N.D. (transit) 20 sec
20:26:08 151.3031 Janpath Guest House, Tolstoy Incoming,
Marg (Janpath/Connaught Place 15 sec
area)
20:45:47 151.3031 Janpath area Incoming,
20 sec
21:07:33 151.3031 Janpath area Incoming,
10 sec
21:07:57 151.3031 Janpath area Incoming,
17 sec
21:12:43 151.3031 Janpath area Incoming,
25 sec
21:44:07 151.3031 Janpath area Incoming,
18 sec
DLND010050332021 Page 68 of 80
SC 194/2021
STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID
FIR No.12/2020
(Barakhamba Road)
U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
21:47:53 151.3032 Janpath area Incoming,
18 sec
21:50:27 151.3032 Janpath area Incoming,
36 sec
21:52:08 151.3031 Janpath area Incoming,
16 sec
21:57:02 151.3031 Janpath area Incoming,
39 sec
21:59:07 151.3031 Janpath area Incoming,
22 sec
22:04:20 151.3031 Janpath area Incoming,
73 sec
22:06:45 151.3031 Janpath area Incoming,
31 sec
22:08:44 151.3031 Janpath area Incoming,
48 sec
22:13:22 151.3031 Janpath area Incoming,
14 sec
22:51:35 151.3032 Janpath area Incoming,
10 sec
The above entries establish, beyond any shadow of doubt, that the complainant "N" was continuously present at and around the Janpath/Connaught Place area from approximately 8:26 PM onwards until at least 22:51 hrs on 18.03.2020, which is consistent with her statement that she worked in shops in that area during the 8:00 PM-11:30 PM shift.
(b) Critical Transition -- At and Immediately After the Time of the Offence:
DLND010050332021 Page 69 of 80 SC 194/2021STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID FIR No.12/2020 (Barakhamba Road) U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 The complainant's CDR records a decisive and abrupt shift in cell tower at 18-MAR-20, 23:30:36, when her mobile phone -- for the first time that entire evening -- latches onto Cell ID 110.43597. This Cell ID, as certified by Bharti Airtel in the location master chart, corresponds to the Gate No-5, RML Hospital, New Delhi.
The significance of this entry cannot be overstated. The complainant's phone was on the Janpath tower (151.3031/3032) as late as 22:51 hrs and then, at 23:30 hrs, it shifts to Cell ID 110.43597 -- the RML Hospital tower. The offence occurred between 23:00-23:15 hrs at Janpath, Connaught Place. The MLC (Ex. PW7/A) records the complainant being brought to RML Hospital by ASI Heera Lal at 11:40 PM (i.e., 23:40 hrs). The CDR transition to the RML Hospital cell tower at 23:30 hrs, consistent with the time of the PCR van ferrying "N" from Janpath to RML, provides perfect electronic corroboration of the prosecution's timeline. The subsequent CDR entries -- from 00:31 hrs on 19.03.2020 through well into the morning -- all show the complainant's mobile continuously pinging Cell ID 110.43597 (RML Hospital), consistent with her being admitted to and remaining at RML Hospital for treatment.
DLND010050332021 Page 70 of 80 SC 194/2021 STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID FIR No.12/2020 (Barakhamba Road) U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 Time (18- Cell ID Location Significance 19.03.2020) 22:51:35 (18.03) 151.3032 Janpath, Tolstoy Marg Last recorded area location at Janpath before offence 23:30:36 (18.03) 110.43597 RML Hospital Transition -- attack at ~23:00-23:15, PCR van to RML 00:31:04 (19.03) 110.43597 RML Hospital At RML Hospital post-admission 00:44:07 (19.03) 110.43597 RML Hospital At RML Hospital (call from PW8) 00:45:21 (19.03) 110.43597 RML Hospital At RML Hospital 00:56:58 (19.03) 110.43597 RML Hospital At RML Hospital (call to PW8)
v. CDR of the Accused Munna @ Junaid (Mobile No. 7428401171): Movement from Daryaganj to Janpath/Connaught Place and Return: The CDR of the accused's mobile number 7428401171 for 18-19.03.2020 (Ex. A-3) reveals the following critical movement:
(a) Accused movement from Daryaganj to Connaught Place The CDR entries from 7:46 AM on 18.03.2020 onwards show the accused's phone pinging Cell ID 111.28961 (Chandni Mahal, Daryaganj) and nearby Daryaganj-area towers, confirming his presence in his home area of Suiwalan, Daryaganj throughout the morning and afternoon. By 18:52:56 hrs he is again at Cell ID DLND010050332021 Page 71 of 80 SC 194/2021 STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID FIR No.12/2020 (Barakhamba Road) U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 111.28961 -- Chandni Mahal, Daryaganj.
Most critically, at 23:13:06 -- a 209-second call (nearly 3.5 minutes) through Cell ID 151.9264 -- British Motors, Connaught Place tower. At 23:18:54 -- Cell ID 110.46826 (Barakhamba Road, 33 seconds). At 23:29:41 -- Cell ID 111.28961 (Chandni Mahal/Daryaganj tower, 79 seconds). These entries between 23:00 and 23:53 hrs on 18.03.2020 place the accused squarely in the Janpath-Connaught Place-Barakhamba Road corridor during the very window (23:00-23:15 hrs) when the acid attack was committed.
Time Cell ID Location Significance
07:46 AM (18.03) 111.28961 Chandni Mahal, Accused at home/base area
Daryaganj
19:08:31 (18.03) 111.28961 Daryaganj Still in Daryaganj
23:13:06 (18.03) 151.9264 British Motors, At crime scene area --
Connaught Place time of offence
23:18:54 (18.03) 110.46826 Barakhamba Road At crime scene area --
CP time of offence
23:18:54 (18:03) 110.46826 Barakhamba Road Return after offence
CP
vi. Convergence of Both CDRs: The Electronic Corroboration is Conclusive: When the CDRs of both the complainant and the accused are read together alongside the Cell ID master chart, the following picture emerges with incontrovertible clarity:
DLND010050332021 Page 72 of 80 SC 194/2021STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID FIR No.12/2020 (Barakhamba Road) U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(a) The complainant "N" (mobile 9958475864) was continuously present at the Janpath/Connaught Place area from at least 20:26 hrs until 22:51 hrs on 18.03.2020, consistent with her deposition of working in shops in that area.
(b) The accused Munna @ Junaid (mobile 7428401171) left his home in Daryaganj and was in the Janpath-Connaught Place area between 23:00 and 23:18 hrs on 18.03.2020, which is the precise time window when the offence was committed.
(c) The complainant's phone transitions from the Janpath tower to the RML Hospital tower (110.43597) at 23:30 hrs --
consistent with the PCR van transporting her to RML Hospital within minutes of the attack, and the MLC (Ex. PW7/A) recording her arrival at RML at 23:40 hrs.
(d) The complainant's phone then remains on the RML Hospital tower continuously throughout the night and early morning of 19.03.2020, corroborating her admission to RML Hospital and ongoing treatment.
(e) The accused's phone transitions back from the Janpath/CP area to the Daryaganj tower (111.28961) from 23:29 hrs onwards, consistent with his flight from the scene of crime.
(f) This convergence of two independent CDR streams -- one tracking the accused's journey from Daryaganj to Janpath and DLND010050332021 Page 73 of 80 SC 194/2021 STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID FIR No.12/2020 (Barakhamba Road) U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 back, and the other tracking the complainant's presence at Janpath and subsequent transition to RML Hospital -- constitutes independent electronic corroboration that admits of no innocent explanation.
vii. This electronic evidence has been placed on record through hard-copy CDR printouts, the Cell ID master address chart, and the Section 65-B certificate issued by the Nodal Officer of Bharti Airtel Limited, in full compliance with the requirements of Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer [(2014) 10 SCC 473] and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal [(2020) 7 SCC 1]. CDR data is generated automatically by the telecommunications network -- it is a record of electronic transactions, not dependent on any human memory, motivation, or testimony. It is therefore impervious to the suggestion of fabrication, tutoring, or false implication. The accused while admitting the CDR data in Statement u/s 294 CrPC, offered no explanation for why his mobile phone was pinging cell towers in the Janpath-Connaught Place area at 23:13 and 23:18 hrs on 18.03.2020, at the very location and at the very time when "N" was subjected to a brutal acid attack -- particularly given that his residence is in Daryaganj and he has no disclosed commercial or professional reason to be at Connaught Place at 11:00 PM DLND010050332021 Page 74 of 80 SC 194/2021 STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID FIR No.12/2020 (Barakhamba Road) U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 G) Accused's Conduct -- Consciousness of Guilt i. The conduct of the accused both during and after the offence is a highly incriminating circumstance. When the police party arrived at the house of his brother Phool Babu at house No. 1905, Suiwala, Darya Ganj, the accused was not at home of his brother. When the police, accompanied by Phool Babu, located the accused near a crossing in the early hours of 19.03.2020, the accused -- upon seeing the police party and his own brother -- immediately attempted to flee. He was chased and apprehended by PW-10 and PW-9. This flight from lawful authority is a powerful circumstance of guilt consciousness, giving rise to a suspicion as a person who absconds from arrest is likely to have committed the offence. This flight is deposed to by PW-4 (W/HC Jyoti), PW-9 (Ct. Gaurav), and PW-10 (IO SI Lokesh Kumar), all of whom are consistent on this point.
ii. Furthermore, upon being brought to RML Hospital after his arrest, the accused was immediately identified by "N" -- his former wife, who had known him intimately for over 14 years -- as the same person who had thrown acid upon her. This identification at the hospital, made by a victim who knows the perpetrator personally and identifies him from close quarters, needs no parade or test identification, and is of the highest evidentiary value. As held in Dana Yadav v. State of Bihar DLND010050332021 Page 75 of 80 SC 194/2021 STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID FIR No.12/2020 (Barakhamba Road) U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [(2002) 7 SCC 295], where the witness is closely acquainted with the accused, identification by that witness is fully reliable without a formal TI parade.
H) Consideration Of Defence Arguments i. The defence raised the following principal contentions: (i) that the prosecution case rests solely on the "solitary version" of an interested witness, viz., "N", who had a prior dispute with the accused and had allegedly threatened to implicate him falsely;
(ii) that there are no independent eyewitnesses; (iii) that certain inconsistencies exist in the testimony of "N" regarding the date, the description of the bottle, and the names of the shops where she worked; (iv) that the mobile phone of "N", which could have yielded evidence, was suspiciously lost; (v) that the IO failed to join independent public witnesses to the investigation; and (vi) that documentary work was done at the police station rather than at the scene.
ii. These contentions, when tested against the evidence on record, carry no weight and must be rejected:
(a) The contention that the case rests on a "solitary version"
wholly ignores the multifaceted corroboration from: the Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement; the MLC history; the FSL report; the CDR data; the testimony of PW-8 (the friend who received the call); and the testimonies of five police witnesses DLND010050332021 Page 76 of 80 SC 194/2021 STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID FIR No.12/2020 (Barakhamba Road) U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 who separately corroborate different aspects of the case. The Supreme Court in Leela Ram v. State of Haryana [(1999) 9 SCC 525] has held that a conviction can be based on the testimony of the victim, if her evidence is credible and reliable, and a fortiori when it is corroborated as thoroughly as in the present case.
(b) The absence of independent eyewitnesses in a nocturnal acid attack in an isolated spot is neither unusual nor suspicious.
The Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sanjay Kumar [(2017) 2 SCC 51] has reiterated that the law does not require any particular number of witnesses, and the quality of evidence is what matters, not the quantity. The PCR personnel who received "N" and took her to hospital were not examined as witnesses but their role is corroborated through the MLC and the testimony of PW-10.
(c) The minor inconsistencies in "N"'s deposition regarding peripheral details are wholly explicable by the severe trauma of the attack, the passage of time, and her illiteracy. As noted above, the core narrative never wavers. The Supreme Court in Rameshbhai Chandubhai Rathod (supra) has warned against a pedantic or hyper-critical approach to the testimony of acid attack survivors.
(d) The loss of "N"'s mobile phone, as explained by her, occurred subsequently -- she stated that her phone was stolen. The DLND010050332021 Page 77 of 80 SC 194/2021 STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID FIR No.12/2020 (Barakhamba Road) U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 CDR of the accused, however, was obtained and placed on record, which independently establishes his location near the scene. The absence of the victim's phone cannot be treated as a suspicious circumstance or one that tips the balance in favour of the accused.
(e) The failure of the IO to join independent public witnesses to the investigation at 1:00 AM in a commercial area of Connaught Place does not, by itself, impugn the investigation. The Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Anil Singh [AIR 1988 SC 1998] has held that the absence of public witnesses in nocturnal or sensitive investigations does not per se render the investigation suspect.
(f) The defence suggestion that all documentation was prepared at the police station is a bare suggestion without any supporting evidence. It was categorically denied by PW-1, PW-3, PW-4, PW-9, and PW-10. The Scene of Crime report (Ex. PW1/1), the photographs (Ex. PW3/A), and the seizure memos corroborate the presence of the investigating team at the spot.
iii. The accused's statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. consists entirely of bare denials. No alternative explanation was offered for his presence near Connaught Place at the relevant time, as disclosed by the CDR data. No defence witness was produced to support the theory of false implication. The fact of the prior DLND010050332021 Page 78 of 80 SC 194/2021 STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID FIR No.12/2020 (Barakhamba Road) U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 marriage between the accused and "N" and the subsequent divorce -- which was the very motive for the crime -- was admitted.
6. FINAL FINDINGS 6.1. In light of the foregoing analysis, this Court finds that the prosecution has established, beyond any reasonable doubt, all the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 326A IPC:
A) Voluntary act: The accused Munna @ Junaid voluntarily and deliberately threw acid upon "N" from a plastic bottle he had carried to the spot, after first uttering threatening words disclosing his motive, establishing that the act was premeditated. B) Acid or corrosive substance: The FSL report (Ex. A-5) confirms the presence of acid residues on the victim's clothing and identifies the acid as Hydrochloric Acid. The MLC confirms injuries consistent with chemical/acid burns.
C) Grievous hurt with permanent disfigurement: The burn injuries documented in the MLC (Ex. PW7/A) on the face, neck, chest, and arm of "N" are consistent with the use of a corrosive acid and constitute grievous hurt within the meaning of Section 320 and Section 326A IPC.
D) Mens rea: The accused's own words -- "tu meri nahi ho saki to kisi aur ki bhi nahi hone dunga" -- spoken immediately before the attack, together with the premeditated procurement of acid in a bottle DLND010050332021 Page 79 of 80 SC 194/2021 STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID FIR No.12/2020 (Barakhamba Road) U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the deliberate act of throwing it on "N"'s face and body, leave no doubt as to the accused's intention to permanently disfigure and disable her.
E) The totality of evidence: the testimony of "N" (PW-2) corroborated by the res gestae statements to the PCR personnel and IO (PW-10, PW-4); the contemporaneous communication to PW-8 (Smt. Sita Goswami) which is itself admissible as res gestae under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act; the Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement (Ex.
PW2/C) consistent with the initial complaint; the MLC (Ex. PW7/A) consistent with the history narrated by "N"; the FSL report (Ex. A-5) confirming Hydrochloric acid on the clothing; the CDR data (Ex. A-3) confirming the accused's presence at the scene; the crime scene evidence of PW-1, PW-3, and PW-9; and the consciousness of guilt inferred from the accused's flight at the time of arrest -- forms an unassailable chain of evidence pointing unerringly and exclusively to the guilt of the accused, Munna @ Junaid.
7. ORDER 7.1. This Court is accordingly satisfied, after a thorough and dispassionate appraisal of the entire evidence, that the prosecution has proved the charge under Section 326A IPC beyond any reasonable doubt. The accused, Munna @ Junaid, is accordingly convicted for the offence punishable under Section 326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
DLND010050332021 Page 80 of 80 SC 194/2021STATE Vs. MUNNA @ JUNAID FIR No.12/2020 (Barakhamba Road) U/s.326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 7.2. Accused to be heard on sentence on 06.05.2026.
Announced in the open Court SAURABH Digitally signed
by SAURABH
on 28th of April 2026 PARTAP PARTAP SINGH
LALER
(Saurabh Partap
SINGH Singh Laler)
Date: 2026.04.28
LALER
ASJ-05, New Delhi District
17:42:34 +0530
Patiala House Courts, New Delhi
28.04.2026