The Madras High Court has dismissed the appeals filed by two convicts and upheld their conviction and life sentences for the 2009 acid attack that resulted in the death of a medical shop owner in Erode. The Division Bench of Justice N. Sathish Kumar and Justice K. Rajasekar held that although the prosecution had failed to establish the alleged motive and conspiracy, the other evidence on record sufficiently established the involvement of the accused.
The case arose from an incident on June 14, 2009, when the deceased, after closing his medical shop at around 9.30 p.m., was attacked with acid while returning home. He sustained severe burn injuries and subsequently died at Coimbatore Government Medical College Hospital. The post-mortem examination concluded that he died due to sulphuric acid poisoning and its complications.
The prosecution case was supported by the evidence of witnesses who placed the two accused near the scene shortly before the attack. One witness stated that he saw two persons on a motorcycle, with the pillion rider carrying a can, before acid was thrown at the deceased. Another witness saw both accused leaving a tea shop on a motorcycle immediately after the deceased had closed his medical shop and heard the deceased’s cries within two to three minutes.
The Court also relied on the medical evidence showing that both accused had sustained acid injuries around the same time. Further, forensic examination detected sulphuric acid on material objects seized from the accused, including their clothes and helmet, as well as on articles connected with the deceased and the place of occurrence.
Rejecting the argument that the absence of a Test Identification Parade weakened the prosecution case, the Bench held that a TIP is not obligatory and that its absence is not fatal where the identity of the accused is otherwise established through reliable evidence. The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Dharmendra Kumar v. State of M.P., (2024) 8 SCC 60 on this aspect.
Also Read SC : Contractual Bar Can Oust Arbitrator’s Power to Award Pre-Reference Interest
The Court further observed that the accused had sustained acid injuries but had offered no satisfactory explanation for how those injuries were caused. Referring to Section 106 of the Evidence Act and the Supreme Court’s decisions in Ram Gulam Chaudhary v. State of Bihar, (2001) 8 SCC 311 and Sabitri Samantaray v. State of Odisha, (2023) 11 SCC 813, the Bench held that facts within the special knowledge of the accused may require an explanation once the prosecution establishes the foundational circumstances.
On the issue of motive, the Court noted that the prosecution had not established the alleged motive or conspiracy. However, relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bipin Kumar Mondal v. State of West Bengal, (2010) 12 SCC 91, it held that the absence of a proved motive does not render reliable eyewitness evidence untrustworthy.
Accordingly, the Bench dismissed both criminal appeals and confirmed the conviction and life sentences imposed by the IV Additional District and Sessions Court, Erode at Bhavani, on A-1 under Section 302 IPC and A-2 under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC
