CASE BRIEF: SYED SHAFIQ AHMED v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS., 2002 CRILJ 1403

CASE NAME	Syed Shafiq Ahmed v. State Of Maharashtra And Ors., 2002 CRILJ 1403
CITATION	2002 CRILJ 1403
COURT	Bombay High Court
BENCH	Hon’ble Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar
APPELLANT	Syed Shafiq Ahmed
RESPONDENT	State of Maharashtra
DECIDED ON	9th February 2001

INTRODUCTION

Syed Shafiq Ahmed, the petitioner, challenged his conviction and sentence by the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Aurangabad in the matter of Syed Shafiq Ahmed vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, which the Bombay High Court decided on 9 February 2001. Ahmed was first convicted on October 29, 1988, of causing serious harm by hazardous weapons or means and causing harm voluntarily, respectively, in accordance with Sections 326 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). In addition to imposing a ₹5,000 fine, the court sentenced him to three years of hard jail, with an additional nine months of rigorous imprisonment to be served if the fine was not paid. This conviction resulted from Ahmed attacking his wife and another person with acid, which caused serious damage, such as facial deformity and blindness in his wife’s right eye.

On August 6, 1990, Ahmed’s appeal to the Aurangabad Sessions Judge was denied, confirming the initial conviction and sentence. He then filed an appeal with the Bombay High Court, contesting the rulings of the Sessions Judge and the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The evidence that was presented, the relevance of the IPC sections Ahmed was charged under, and the reasonableness of the sentence that was imposed were the main points of the High Court’s review. The court looked at whether the punishment’s severity or the lower courts’ conclusions were incorrect. In the end, the High Court confirmed Ahmed’s conviction and the associated punishment, upholding the rulings of the lower courts.

This case demonstrates the Indian judiciary’s position on acid attacks and the system’s dedication to treating such heinous crimes with the proper gravity. The conviction and sentence were upheld, demonstrating the courts’ understanding of the severe psychological and physical harm that acid attack victims endure as well as their determination to discourage such behavior by enforcing strict legal penalties.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The case is based on an acid attack that happened in Kannad, Maharashtra, on March 13, 1987. On October 29, 1988, the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Aurangabad found the petitioner, Syed Shafiq Ahmed, guilty of violating Sections 326 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). In addition to being fined ₹5,000, he was sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment, with an additional nine months of rigorous incarceration if he didn’t comply. Mirza Mohammed Baig, his co-accused, was exonerated for lack of proof. The current revision application resulted from the Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, upholding this conviction on August 6, 1990.

According to the prosecution’s case, on the evening of March 13, 1987, between 8:00 and 10:00 p.m., the petitioner and Baig, who were on a motorbike, assaulted three ladies with acid between the B and C Rest House on Kannad-Chalisgaon Road: Zaibunnisa, Azra Sultana (the petitioner’s wife), and Mushirunnisa. The pillion rider was seriously hurt when he threw a liquid from a container as the motorcycle got closer. Zaibunnisa’s face was deformed, and her right eye was blinded as a result of burns to her left shoulder, right side of her torso, and chest. Mushirunnisa’s back, shoulder, and face were burned. It is stated that the petitioner directly put liquid on Azra’s face.

The victims alerted the police, named the petitioner as the assailant, and set off an alarm. They were sent to the Medical College Hospital, Aurangabad, for care despite prompt attempts to obtain medical attention at a nearby dispensary. The petitioner and Baig were arrested and charged under Sections 326 and 324, read with Section 34 IPC, as a result of the police inquiry.

Fourteen witnesses, including the investigating officer, were questioned throughout the trial. The trial court found the petitioner guilty based on their facts and testimony but found Baig not guilty. This revision application was prompted by the dismissal of the petitioner’s subsequent appeal. The case emphasizes the seriousness of the offense and the petitioner’s argument against the lower courts’ rulings.

ISSUES RAISED

Was the evidence and testimony given during the trial sufficient to support the petitioner’s conviction under Sections 326 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code?
Despite the claims that Mirza Mohammed Baig was involved in the acid assault, was it incorrect for the trial court to exonerate him due to a lack of evidence?

ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES

Arguments on behalf of the appellant

The learned advocate has argued that the petitioner’s name was mentioned for the first time almost four days after the alleged incident and that the first information report filed in the case in question did not reveal that he was the one who had thrown acid on the girls’ person.
The learned advocate for the petitioner further argues that the account of the incident provided by the so-called eyewitnesses is riddled with inconsistencies, and as a result, the evidence in the record does not support the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty that the lower courts reached.
The Courts below should have ruled that the evidence on file is insufficient to convict the petitioner due to the complete lack of any materials establishing the petitioner’s motivation for committing the alleged offense and the fact that the case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence, which is insufficient to establish the sequence of events linking the petitioner to the alleged offense.
Furthermore, it is argued that given that the petitioner was charged with a comparable offense and that accused No. 2 was exonerated due to a lack of evidence,

Arguments on behalf of the respondent

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has argued, citing the rulings of the lower courts, that the injuries to the accused’s neck and left palm, which the arresting medical officer confirmed, unequivocally show the petitioner’s involvement in the acid-throwing incident involving the three girls.
He has also argued that the animosity between the petitioner and Azra has been amply documented, which proves the petitioner’s motivation for committing the crime.
The record, including the evidence analyzed by the lower courts, makes it clear that the petitioner was identified by the learned A. P. P. Mushirunnisa, who also revealed his name to the investigating officer on the day of the occurrence.

JUDGMENT

In the first attack, the acid appeared on Zaibunnisa’s right side face, causing her great pain, disfigurement, and loss of her right eye. She also sustained significant chemical burns on her chest, back, shoulder, and forearm from the damage to her clothing. Meanwhile, some acid particles appeared on Mushirunnisa’s left side face, shoulder, upper chest wall, and back. It should be mentioned that Zaibunnisa and Azra Sultana received the majority of their injuries on the right side of their bodies, whilst Mushirunnisa only received burns on the left side. It is clear from the medical report that is on file that Zaibunnisa had severe superficial burns to his right eye, right side of his face, both upper extremities from his right side to his neck, and his upper chest wall. He also lost his vision in his right eye, and his right ear was disfigured. The right side of Azra Sultana’s face, right nose, upper extremities, chest wall, etc., were also injured. Exhs. 57/1, 57/2, and 57/3, which feature photos of Zaibunnisa, and Exh. 59, which features photos of Azra Sultana following the incident, will make these facts abundantly evident.

Therefore, the petition fails and is hereby rejected because there is no case presented for interference in the contested judgment under the circumstances. The rule is dismissed. Stands for temporary relief are empty. The bail bonds have been revoked. Within six weeks from today, the petitioner must submit.

CONCLUSION

The petitioner, Syed Shafiq Ahmed, committed an acid assault, and the case mainly concerns whether there is enough evidence to warrant his conviction under Sections 326 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Witness statements from the victims, Zaibunnisa, Azra Sultana, and Mushirunnisa, who categorically named the petitioner as the culprit, were among the prosecution’s evidence. The seriousness of the crime was highlighted by the extent of the injuries, which included Zaibunnisa’s deformity and blindness. The trial court’s reliance on medical reports supporting the victims’ statements further strengthened the prosecution’s case.

According to the petitioner, the evidence was inconsistent and insufficient. Nonetheless, the testimony was deemed credible and backed by circumstantial and medical evidence by both the trial and appellate courts. The petitioner was immediately connected to the crime after being identified by several witnesses.

The absence of supporting evidence demonstrating Mirza Mohammed Baig’s direct involvement in the attack led to his acquittal as a co-accused. A pillar of criminal jurisprudence, the prosecution’s failure to prove his role beyond a reasonable doubt was upheld by the court.

The revision application examined the petitioner’s argument that the lower courts made mistakes in their conclusions. The Bombay High Court reexamined the evidence and came to the conclusion that the lower court’s conclusions were reasonable and sound. The court stressed the horrible nature of the offense and the irreparable harm done to the victims, emphasizing that such crimes should be punished severely in order to avoid future occurrences.

The Bombay High Court affirmed the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s and Sessions Judge’s rulings, upholding the petitioner’s conviction and punishment under Sections 326 and 324 of the IPC. The court underlined how crucial it is to prevent acid attacks because of the terrible toll they take on victims’ lives. Because the prosecution was unable to prove Mirza Mohammed Baig’s involvement beyond a reasonable doubt, his acquittal as a co-accused was also upheld.

This case demonstrates the judiciary’s dedication to upholding the values of evidence-based decision-making while administering justice in cases involving horrific crimes. The severe penalty imposed on the petitioner demonstrates the court’s determination to treat such violations seriously.