LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. v. Vijay Kumar alias Pappu and Anr.

Criminal Appeal · 2019 INSC 377Decided 15 Mar 2019
Criminal Appeal No. 753 of 2010
Justice A.M. Khanwilkar · Justice Ajay Rastogi

Background

On 12 July 2004, two young men threw acid on a 19-year-old college-going girl from a scooter, causing 16% burn injuries. The trial court convicted them under Section 307 (attempt to murder) read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment. The Himachal Pradesh High Court altered the conviction to the lesser offence under Section 326 IPC (voluntarily causing grievous hurt) given the extent of the burns, reducing the sentence to 5 years with an enhanced fine, and the convicts had already served this sentence and were released by late 2008. The State appealed to the Supreme Court seeking restoration of the original 10-year sentence, while the convicts argued even the reduced sentence was more than warranted; the victim additionally sought compensation.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court declined to restore the Section 307 conviction, holding that the High Court's conclusion, based on medical evidence that the burns, while serious, were not life-threatening to the degree required for attempt-to-murder, and its sentence under Section 326 IPC did not call for interference, relying on its own precedent in similar acid-attack cases (Sachin Jana, Ravada Sasikala). However, noting the severity of the crime and the victim's lasting suffering, the Court held this was an appropriate case to award additional victim compensation beyond the fine already imposed. It directed each accused to personally pay the victim Rs. 1,50,000 additional compensation (with a default sentence of six months' imprisonment if unpaid), and separately directed the State of Himachal Pradesh to pay compensation to the victim under its Victim Compensation Scheme, to be deposited with the trial court for disbursement.

Lesson Learnt

In serious crimes like acid attacks, courts can award victim compensation over and above the criminal sentence and fine, both from the convicted persons personally and from the State under its statutory victim compensation scheme, recognising that punishment alone may not address a victim's ongoing suffering.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Criminal Law

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Charming Rupon v. State of Meghalaya

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution's case riddled with serious doubt. Both the victim and her cousin (a key witness) admitted in cross-examination that they could not identify the accused and that his name had been supplied to them by the victim's mother, raising a strong suspicion of tutoring, especially since the victim admitted she had been coached by the public prosecutor before testifying. The mother's own conduct (not reacting urgently despite being told of the assault, and material facts missing from the belated FIR) was found "unnatural." A crucial witness, the school teacher whose disclosure triggered the FIR, was never examined, without explanation, warranting an adverse inference against the prosecution. The Court also noted that two medical witnesses were never meaningfully cross-examined because the defence counsel was absent on the relevant dates, and that the trial court had wrongly brushed aside credible alibi evidence led by the accused.

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive v. The State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court restored the trial court's acquittal. It found that the prosecution never produced the original cashbooks, daily registers, or audit reports that would have actually proven the appellant was entrusted with and misappropriated the money: the investigating officer himself admitted these documents were never shown to him despite being asked for. The department also failed to produce records the appellant had specifically sought in his own defence. Separately, the search and seizure of documents from the appellant's house was legally doubtful, since both independent witnesses to the seizure turned hostile and denied knowing its contents, and the mandatory procedural safeguards for such a seizure were not followed. The Court also flagged that the High Court convicted the appellant for the very first time on appeal without ever hearing him on the question of sentence, which the law required it to do.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Gurpreet Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

The Court accepted that the order recalling the proclaimed offender status be placed on record. Noting that the complainant was untraceable and the prosecution itself raised no serious objection to anticipatory bail, the Court found no reason to deny the applicant liberty. It granted anticipatory bail, directing release on a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the event of arrest.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Mukesh Rani vs. Narcotics Control Bureau

The Court noted the investigation was complete, the chargesheet was filed, the co-accused had already been granted bail, and the combined quantity recovered (1.976 kg) still fell short of the "commercial quantity" threshold under the NDPS Act. With ten witnesses yet to be examined and no indication the trial would conclude quickly, the Court found continued detention unnecessary and granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Aakash vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

The Court noted that all prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and the guest house manager, had already been examined, and that a co-accused in the same FIR had already been granted bail. Given the complainant's own testimony about voluntary association with the petitioner and the completed trial evidence, the Court found the overall facts favoured bail. It granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions (reporting to police weekly, not influencing witnesses, providing address/mobile details).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Kundan Kumar vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

The Court relied on earlier Delhi High Court rulings holding that whether a broken promise of marriage was "false" from the outset (criminal) or a mere "breach" (not criminal) is a question for trial, not something requiring custodial interrogation. Noting the investigation was complete and the applicant had no prior criminal record, the Court granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with conditions, clarifying the order was not an opinion on the merits.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case