CBI, special court, Haryana, convicted two residents of Rohtak of throwing acid on three girls, all minor, in Rohtak on June 18, 2011, on Tuesday. However, a woman, who the prosecutor had alleged, was the main instigator behind the attack was acquitted. The sentencing will be done on Tuesday.
The case had hogged limelight, after the Haryana State Legal Service Authority approached the Punjab and Haryana high court against the Haryana Police, alleging that the investigation had not been fair. After examining the evidence, the high court had handed over the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on May 22, 2012.
The CBI chargesheet had stated that Rohtak residents, Jitendra and his friend Naveen, now in their 30s, had thrown acid on three minor girls - Urvashi, Prerna and Yashika, while the girls were on their way to tuitions.
CBI special judge Rakesh Kumar Yadav convicted the duo under Sections 326 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means), 324 and 34 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention), respectively. They were acquitted of the attempt to murder charge.
Of the victims, Prerna had 30% burns, Yashika up to 20% burns and Urvashi suffered up to 15% burns.
The CBI has also alleged that one of the victim (Yashika's mother) Kiran and her aunt Geeta had a strained relationship, after Kiran had once commented on the dark complexion of Geeta's daughter. This, the CBI claimed, had led Geeta, now acquitted, to plan throwing acid on Yashika.
During trial, Yashika and her parents had turned hostile, Prerna, who suffered the maximum burns, had stood by her statement to the police.
Sources said that from all accounts the conspiracy was planned against Yashika, but Prerna suffered the maximum burns in the acid attack.
It is also claimed that even though the target seemed to Yashika, but her friend Prerna suffered the maximum burns in the acid attack.
The court acquitted Geeta, the maternal aunt of one of the victim Yashika, of all charges, stating that her involvement could not be proved in the case.