Allahabad High Court
Vipin vs State Of U.P. on 1 April, 2026
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:73009-DB
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5451 of 2017
Vipin
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
Rakesh Prasad, Tarun Kumar Sharma, Tushar Kant
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 44
HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.
HON'BLE VINAI KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
1. Heard Mr. Satendra Narayan, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. G.N. Kanaujiya, learned A.G.A.-1st for the State/opposite party and perused the record as well as judgment of the trial court.
2. The present criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 04.03.2017 passed by Sessions Judge, Hapur, in Sessions Trial No. 644/2015(State Vs. Vipin) related to case crime no. 390 of 2015, under section 326-A, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Hapur Dehat, District- Hapur, convicting the appellant for life imprisonment under section 326-A I.P.C., and imposing a fine of Rs. 1,00,000-/ and in case of non-payment of fine further 6 months Addl. Imprisonment, convicting the appellant for two years rigorous imprisonment under section 506 I.P.C., and imposing a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in case of non-payment of fine further one month additional imprisonment.
3. According to the prosecution story, case complainant, Habib Khan, gave information in the police station, Hapur Dehat on 27.08.2015, stating therein that his brother, Pappu, lives in village Dadayara with his family, and Vipin also lives in the same village with his sister, Shashi w/o Anil. Victim Heena is his niece with whom the accused, Vipin, was having a one-sided love affair while Heena was not interested in reciprocating his love. On 27.08.2015, like her daily routine, the niece of the complainant went to Tejveer's dairy to fetch milk, and when she was returning at 07.00 pm and reached near the house of Karan Singh, she met accused Vipin, who threatened her of not responding to his overtures. He threw acid on my niece. She ran towards home screaming. Upon hearing her screams, Pappu, the complainant's brother, along with his wife and several villagers, rushed to the scene; whereform, Vipin had already fled. The complainant was informed by his brother. He took his brother, Pappu, and his sister-in-law, Phulmizra, to the police station. A case under crime no. 390 of 2015 u/s 326, 326A, and 506 of the IPC was registered at the police station.
4. The case was investigated by the police, and the victim was medically examined. The statement of the victim u/s 164 CrPC was recorded. Upon investigation, the matter was found to be substantiated, leading to the submission of a chargesheet against the accused under sections 326A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. In this case, after providing copies of the prosecution documents to the accused, the concerned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court. Finding prima facie sufficient grounds against the accused under Sections 326-A and 506 IPC, charges were framed. The accused charges and prayed for a trial, whereupon the prosecution was directed to present all evidence in support of its case.
6. On behalf of the prosecution, PW-1, the complainant Mohd. Habib, has been examined; he corroborated the prosecution's case and proved the written complaint exhibit.
7. On behalf of the prosecution, PW-2?the victim/injured herself, Heena? has been examined; fully corroborating the prosecution's case, she proved her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC being exhibit Ka-2.
8. On behalf of the prosecution, PW-3, Dr. Virendra Kumar, was examined; he testified that the victim/injured party, Heena, had been admitted to the hospital due to burns allegedly caused by acid. He further stated that the chest and back regions of the patient, Heena, sustained burns covering a total of 26?30 percent of her entire body surface area. This witness proved the injury report exhibit Ka-3.
9. On behalf of the prosecution, PW-4, Dr. Kapil, was examined; he proved the injury report exhibit ka-4 of the victim, Heena. According to this witness, the following injuries were observed on the body of the injured/victim:
Injury No. 1: A superficial burn measuring 6 x 2 cm, located on the head slightly above the right ear. Injury No. 2: A superficial burn covering the entire right arm, extending from the shoulder down to the hand. Injury No. 3: A superficial burn located on the back of the shoulder, covering an area of 15 x 10 cm. Injury No. 4: A superficial burn on the right side of the chest, covering an area of 10 x 10 cm in the vicinity of the thorax.
10. On behalf of the prosecution, PW-5, Lady Constable Rekha Tomar, appeared as a formal witness; she has proved the Chik FIR Exhibit Ka-5 and the copy of the General Diary entry Exhibit Ka-6.
11. On behalf of the prosecution, PW-6, Sub-Inspector Yogendra Malik, was examined. This witness, too, is a formal witness; he has corroborated the facts regarding the recovery of a plastic canister and a small liquor bottle from the scene of the incident in the company of the Investigating Officer, the preparation of the relevant memos, the seizure of the victim's burnt clothes and the preparation of the corresponding memo, and the arrest of the accused, Vipin, alongside the Investigating Officer based on information received from an informer.
12. On behalf of the prosecution, PW-7, the Investigating Officer (Sub-Inspector) Nepal Singh, was examined. He proved the site-map (Exhibit Ka-7), the seizure memo regarding the canister and pauwa (small bottle) (Exhibit Ka-8), the seizure memo of the clothes of the injured victim (Exhibit Ka-9), and the charge sheet (Exhibit Ka-10). This witness further proved the bundle of articles (Exhibit-1), the polythene material (Exhibit-2), the canister material (Exhibit-3), the pauwa (Exhibit-4), and the victim's clothes?comprising a salwar, kurta, a braided hairpiece made of threads, a female vest (sameej), and a dupatta marked as Exhibit-5 to Exhibit-10.
13. On behalf of the prosecution, PW-8, Dr Vipin Sehgal, was examined. This witness testified that on 16.11.2015, when the injured victim, Ms Heena, was brought in by her parents in a burnt condition, he along with Dr Nandini treated her. He further proved the medical records pertaining to this treatment, which were marked as Exhibits Ka-11, Ka-12, Ka-13, and Ka-14.
14. On behalf of the prosecution, PW-9, Dr Rajkumar, was examined. He treated the patient, Heena, from 05.11.2015, to 12.11.2015, and proved the form prepared during the treatment, which was marked as Exhibit Ka-15.
15. The prosecution's evidence was concluded. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, wherein he denied the incident and asserted that he had been falsely implicated due to enmity.
16. Furthermore, in his defense statement, he stated that "The acid was thrown by Hina's family members because she wanted to marry me."
17. The issue to be determined by trial court is that, on 27.08.2015, at 7:00 PM, in Village Dadayra, under area of PS ? Hapur Dehat, District Hapur, the accused, Vipin, caused grievous injury to the complainant's niece, Heena?by throwing acid upon her?and gave threats to kill her, driven by unrequited love and the victim's refusal to accept his terms.
18. A perusal of the record reveals that, in this matter, two witnesses of fact, PW-1 (the complainant, Habib Khan) and PW-2 (the victim, Heena), have corroborated the prosecution's case.
19. P.W.-1 Habib was examined. He is the complainant of the case and brother of the victim's father. In his statement, he stated that his brother, Pappu, lives with his family in Dadayra village. Shashi, wife of Anil, lives in front of his house, and accused Vipin, Shashi's brother, lives nearby. Vipin is originally a resident of Sarvodaya Colony, Pilkhuwa. The name of Vipin's father is Jagdish. According to the complainant, Vipin had a one-sided attraction toward his niece, Hina, and he had threatened her, but Hina did not love him. Consequently, on 27.08. 2015, at 7:00 p.m., when she went to Tejveer's dairy to buy milk, Vipin met Hina at the corner of Karan Singh's house. He said, "I made you understand a lot, but you didn't listen. You hate me. I'll teach you a lesson today." He then poured acid on her from a plastic bucket. According to the complainant, the acid burned Hina's right ear, chest, waist, legs, hands, neck, back of the head, and hair, leaving her seriously injured. Hina screamed and ran back into the house. Pappu, his wife, and several others arrived. Upon receiving the information, the complainant arrived, took her to the police station, and filed a report. This witness has proved the written complaint (Exhibit-ka-1).
20. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that this witness (P.W.-1) was not present at the spot and was sitting at the police station for a long time, therefore, by conspiring with the police, the accused was implicated, whereas it were the family members of the victim who had thrown acid.
21. In reply, the learned A.G.A., has submitted that that if Hina had loved the accused and her family had thrown acid on her, she would not have given a statement against the accused, but against her family members.
22. PW-1, complainant of the case Habib Khan, stated during cross-examination that he did not witness the incident as eyewitness. Pappu had told him about the incident. He was at Mushtaq's house at that time; Mushtaq's house is 200 steps away. Raju, a boy from the neighborhood, told me that acid had been thrown on my niece. I immediately rushed to Pappu's house. It took me seven minutes to reach there. People were pouring milk on Hina at that time. There were 30-40 people at Hina's house at that time, more Hindus than Muslims. Among them were Chaman, Nandu, Raju, Indrapal, Nafees, Mahipal, Karan Singh, & Ors. All of them had told about the incident. This witness has stated again that he stayed at Pappu's house for some time, got the report written from Dilshad and went to the police station with Heena. Pappu, Phulmijra and I went to the police station. We went by car, which belonged to Dinesh from the village itself. I also went to the place of occurrence. We might have stayed at the police station an hour. I stayed in the police station itself and did not go to hospital taking Hina. I stayed due to having talk with the Sub-inspector Naipal Singh. I returned home from the police station at 10 O' Clock. Before the incident, I did not know that Vipin was in love with Heena. Pappu told me this. Vipin has been living in the village for 20 years and he had threatened Hina to throw acid on her several times earlier. Inspector Naipal Singh recorded my statement at the police station. The witness has denied the suggestion of the defense that Vipin did not throw acid on Heena. He also denied that Heena wanted to marry Vipin and we were preventing her from doing so, and due to this reason our family members together threw acid on Hina. Thus, it is well clear from the entire testimony of this witness that he has described the incident in a calm and natural manner. There is no indication in his evidence that he exaggerated anything. He has stated only what he knew. Although he was not present at the spot, but after getting the information, he came to the spot, saw Heena in a burnt condition, took her to the police station, and got the report lodged, and he has proved the Tahrir Exhibit Ka-1. He was delayed at the police station while talking to the Sub-inspector. The Sub Inspector was recording his statement, and people had taken Hina to the hospital. In such a situation, the statement of the counsel for appellant that the complainant, with the collusion of the Sub Inspector, himself threw acid and implicated the accused does not seems to be correct.
23. This statement of the counsel for appellant does not appears true in any way that the victim's family members themselves threw acid on her because she wanted to marry the accused and her family members did not agree to this. If this argument is accepted, the question arises that if Hna was in love with the accused Vipin, and wanted to marry him, and her family members threw acid on her, why would she implicate the accused and give a statement against him? Furthermore, this suggestion and statement of the defense is not reliable in any way nor is supported by any evidence, and does not appears to be natural in the facts and circumstances of the case. Consequently, P.W.-1 Habib Khan's, statement completely proves the facts that Hina was attacked with acid, she was burnt by the acid, she was taken to the police station, the Tahrir Ext.Ka-1 was lodged etc. In the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused himself has stated: "The acid was thrown by her own family members because she wanted to marry me." This establishes the fact that acid was indeed thrown upon Hina at the time of the alleged incident. The underlying cause of the acid attack was the love relationship between Hina and the accused. According to the prosecution, this love was one-sided; conversely, according to the accused, it was Hina who desired to marry him. Hina, however, has categorically denied ever being in love with Vipin. She lodged a complaint?and subsequently testified in court?alleging that the accused, Vipin, had harassed the victim due to his own one-sided love; notably, there exists no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Hina either loved Vipin or wished to marry him. Under these circumstances, the statement made by the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure conclusively proves that, on the specific date and time of the incident, acid was thrown upon the victim by the accused?an act that starkly reveals the accused's unrequited obsession and blind infatuation.
24. PW-2, Ms. Heena, has been examined. She is the victim/injured. She has clearly corroborated the incident and stated that the accused, Vipin, had been residing in our village with his sister, Shashi Sharma, for the past 6?7 years. Vipin is originally a resident of Sarvodaya Colony, Pilkhuwa. For 5?6 months prior to the incident, Vipin used to harass her while she was commuting and would pressure her to marry him; however, she rebuked him and refused his marriage proposal. She also complained about this to her family members, who, in turn, reprimanded him as well. The victim further stated that when she refused to marry him, he threatened her, saying, "If you do not marry me, I will throw acid on you." She also testified that on 26-08-2015, Vipin threw a letter into her house; she handed this letter to her mother and informed her that Vipin was the one who had thrown it. Taking the letter with her, her mother went to his sister's house and made a complaint regarding the letter.
25. The victim has again stated that on 27.08.2015, she was returning after taking milk from Tejveer's house. At 7:00 PM, near Karan Singh's house, Vipin met her. He was carrying a cut-up plastic canister and a cut-up bottle in his hands, both of which were filled with acid. Upon seeing her, Vipin remarked, "You did not listen to me, nor did you marry me." When she rebuked him, Vipin poured the acid on her from behind?aiming it directly over her ear?causing burns to her head, ear, shoulder, hands, and legs. He then threw the canister and the empty bottle into Lallu's field and fled from the incident place. She let out a scream of agony. He committed this act at the behest of Shashi and Sudhir. Upon hearing the scream, a large number of neighborhood residents gathered at the spot. They took me from the spot to my home, where raw milk was poured over me, providing some measure of relief. My mother, father, and uncle (Tau) went to the police station to lodge a report; from there, a female constable took me to a hospital for medical treatment. I was subsequently referred to Meerut for further care, and a few days later, I was transferred to the Urban Hospital in Delhi. To this day, I have not fully recovered. The witness identified the accused in court and testified that, as a result of the acid attack, her right hand, shoulder, ear, the area of her head above the ear, and her leg are no longer functioning properly. She acknowledged having recorded a statement before a Magistrate and proved the statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC.
26. The counsel for appellant subjected this witness to cross-examination. She answered the questions raised during the cross-examination with firmness and conviction. She stated that the incident occurred on 27.08.2015. She noted that Vipin had been residing with his sister in Dadayra for six to seven years. He had begun harassing her approximately five to six months prior to the incident. Vipin repeatedly pressured her to love him and marry him. She stated that she had complained about his behavior to Vipin's sister, and that her mother had also complained. Initially, she did not lodge a complaint; she did so only after Vipin's harassment had persisted for three to four months, and she did not lodge any further complaints thereafter. She further stated that he had proposed a romantic relationship and marriage on numerous occasions, though she could not specify the exact number of times. The witness further stated that, just one month prior to the incident, Vipin had threatened her that if she refused to marry him, he would ruin her. She further stated that she used to go to Tejveer's house to fetch milk and would return within just five minutes, Vipin met her near Karan Singh's house. The canister he was carrying was filled with acid, and its top had been cut open. He poured the contents of the canister over me?from the side and from behind. I screamed and, clutching the milk container, ran home. My parents came to the door to receive me. Vipin threw the empty canister into Lallu's field. The clothes I was wearing were completely burnt. This witness has stated in clear terms that she does not love Vipin; she does not know who lodged the report. She remained at the police station for 10?15 minutes, after that she went to the Government Hospital in Hapur. On that very same day, she was referred to a hospital in Meerut. She stayed at the Hapur hospital for about half an hour. Treatment continued at the Meerut hospital for eight days, after which she was referred to a hospital in Delhi. This witness further stated that, one day prior to the incident, Vipin had thrown a letter into her house. She read the letter and then handed it to her mother; taking the letter with her, her mother went to Vipin's house. She had told the Sub-Inspector about the said letter. This witness has denied the suggestion of defence that my family members threw acid on me to falsely implicate Vipin and have been sent to jail. Thus, this witness has completely supported the incident. There is no ambiguity or contradiction in the testimony of this witness.
27. After considering the pleadings and evidences on record we are of the view that the prosecution has succeeded and proving its case beyond reasonable doubts against the appellant. The judgment of the trial court has rightly convicted the appellant for committing the offence under section 326-A and 506 I.P.C. However we find that from the record of this case that the appellant is languishing in jail since 29.08.2015. He was never enlarged on bail during the trial at that time of the incident he was aged about 19 years as per the statement of the appellant is recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. He has committed the offence in youthful rage of receiving no resistance to overtures made by him against the victim. We are of the view that the interest of justice would be served if the sentence of the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone which comes to about 10 years and 6 months. The appellant has no previous criminal antecedents.
28. The Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.
29. Office is directed to return the trial court record and communicate this order to the trial court (Vinai Kumar Dwivedi,J.) (Siddharth,J.) April 1, 2026 Abhishek