‘False implication’: Delhi court acquits 4 men accused of throwing acid on woman

The prosecution alleged that the attack was intended to pressure the complainant into withdrawing an earlier POCSO case

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 court came down heavily on the investigation, particularly “the unexplained 18-month delay” in registering FIR. (Representative file photo)

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.

‘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 alleged crime took place on July 9, 2017… yet the FIR was registered only on January 7, 2021—after an extraordinary gap of 18 months,” the court observed, noting that the investigating officer admitted he had “no knowledge whatsoever” about the reason for the delay.

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.

The investigation, the court observed, also failed to secure potentially corroborative evidence.

“Although the complainant said five to seven passersby had gathered and helped pour water on her, police did not examine any of them. No CCTV footage from the temple or nearby shops was collected and no call-detail records or cell-tower location data were obtained,” the court said.

“The investigating agency failed to recover any acid bottle, container, or motorcycles allegedly used during the crime,” the court said.

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.

The judgment recorded that this evidence showed a history of personal hostility and described it as providing “a compelling reason for false implication.”

For Ramesh and Suresh Chand, the court found that “their alibi remained unrebutted”.

“A former village head produced official Gram Panchayat and MNREGA records showing that both men were working as labourers in Mathura, Uttar Pradesh, on the date of the alleged attack,” the court noted.

While the court noted that the complainant had suffered chemical burns and that the forensic report confirmed hydrochloric acid on her clothes, it held that the prosecution still failed to establish who had committed the attack or prove the alleged common intention of the four accused.

“The essential ingredients of Section 326B IPC remain unproved as the identity of the actual thrower is unestablished,” it said, adding that no specific overt act had been proved against Ramesh, Suresh or Bablu.

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.