Himalaya Harbinger, Rudrapur Burea
A Delhi court on Monday acquitted four men accused of throwing acid on a woman in Sangam Vihar in 2019, while flagging several loopholes in the case of the prosecution which it said failed to establish their identity and involvement beyond a reasonable doubt.
The judgement was passed by additional sessions judge (ASJ) Hargurvarinder Singh Jaggi of Saket courts, acquitting Preet Pal, his father Ramesh, Suresh Chand and Bablu Kumar of charges under Sections 326B (voluntarily throwing or attempting to throw acid), 195A (threatening any person to give false evidence) and 506-II (criminal intimidation).
The case dates back to July 9, 2019, when the complainant was allegedly attacked with an acid-like substance while she was returning home near Shiv Mandir in Sangam Vihar.
According to the prosecution, four men, Preet Pal, his father Ramesh, Suresh Chand and Bablu Kumar, arrived on two motorcycles and allegedly threw the substance on her back and waist.
The prosecution alleged that the attack was intended to pressure the complainant into withdrawing an earlier Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) case against Preet Pal, with the accused allegedly threatening her with another acid attack or her daughter’s death.‘Unexplained 18-month delay in filing FIR’The court in its judgement, came down heavily on the investigation, particularly “the unexplained 18-month delay” in registering the first information report (FIR). It noted that the alleged attack took place on July 9, 2019, and the police had recorded the complainant’s statement and collected her medical examination report on the same day, however, the FIR was registered only on January 7, 2021.
The court stated the unexplained delay “affords ample time for consultation, deliberation, and false implication, striking at the very root of prosecution spontaneity.”The judge also found the prosecution’s case to be heavily dependent on the complainant, its sole eyewitness, whose testimony it said “suffered from material infirmities”.
What ‘cross-examination’ revealed
The court noted that the woman had admitted during cross-examination that she turned around only after feeling a burning sensation on her back.“Thus, she did not actually see who threw the liquid upon her. Her assertion that Preet Pal was holding a bottle is a post-facto assumption,” the court said.
The court further flagged contradictions between the place of occurrence and the preparation of the site plan.“The complainant said she had not visited the spot after the incident, while the site plan prepared in January 2021 bore her signature,” the court noted.The judge also observed that the complainant said she could neither read nor write Hindi or English and had not drafted the complaint herself, while the investigating officers could not clarify who authored its written contents.
Adding to the evidentiary difficulties, the court noted that the complainant’s burnt clothes, which had tested positive for hydrochloric acid, were destroyed in a fire at the Malkhana Nazarat Branch on August 23, 2024.
‘Depriving the court of direct physical inspection
’The court noted that the clothes were consequently never produced or identified during trial, “depriving the court of direct physical inspection and prejudicing the defence.”
While the prosecution had alleged that the attack was intended to force the woman to withdraw an earlier POCSO case against Preet Pal, the court, however, noted that Preet Pal had produced a certified judgment showing that he had been acquitted in that case in March 2025, as well as PCR records relating to disputes between him and the complainant.
On the intimidation and witness-threatening charges, the court said the allegations also lacked independent corroboration and “did not meet the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt”.Consequently, the court held that the prosecution had “miserably failed to prove the charges” and said the accused were entitled to the benefit of “pervasive doubt, systemic investigative lapses, unexplained delay, and unrefuted defence evidence”.
All the four accused were acquitted, subject to personal bonds.
