HAKIMversusSTATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.

                  [2025] 7 S.C.R. 27 : 2025 INSC 728

                                Hakim
                                   v.
                     State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.
                     (Criminal Appeal No. 5304 of 2024)
                                 19 May 2025
           [Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih,* JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       These instant two appeals assail concurrent findings of conviction
       u/s.326A of the Penal Code, 1860 and sentence thereof against
       accused no.1 and accused no.2 respectively appellants herein.

                                   Headnotes†
       Penal Code, 1860 – s.326A r/w. s.34 – It was alleged that
       three accused persons including both the appellants herein
       blocked the way of respondent-victim – Accused no.1-appellant
       and accused no.3 held the respondent-victim while accused
       no.2-appellant, poured acid over her and then ran away from
       the spot – Trial Court convicted all the accused persons –
       Both the appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous
       imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- – Accused no.3
       was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and
       fine of Rs.50,000/- – The decision on conviction of both the
       appellants was affirmed by the High Court – Appellants filed
       SLP – Appellants contended that the prosecution has failed to
       establish that the claimed eye injury was result of pouring of
       acid on the respondent-victim and the prosecution also failed
       to show the source of procurement of the said substance:
       Held: As per the evidence led by the prosecution, different Doctors
       appeared as prosecution witnesses who had treated the victim on
       various occasions i.e., PW-5, PW-8, PW-9, PW-10, PW-11, PW-12
       and PW-14 – All of them have testified that the injuries on the skin
       and the deformity of the face, including loss of vision, albeit not
       fully i.e., 90% in the left eye of the respondent-victim were the
       result of serious Chemical Burn injuries – Therefore, this plea of
       the appellants fails – The question of the nature and contents of the
       alleged substance used and thrown on the victim would not arise


* Author
28                                                              [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


      as the possibility of recovery of the same does not arise as the
      incident was committed at railway crossing adjacent to the railway
      line where all the accused ran away after committing the offence –
      However, chemical burns on the person of the respondent-victim
      are substantiated from testimonies and medical evidence – This
      ground also fails – As far a sentence is concerned, considering
      the role in the offence, age and ailments being suffered by the
      appellant-accused no.1, this Court is inclined to interfere and reduce
      the sentence and bring it at par with the sentence awarded to the
      accused no.3 for his role in holding the respondent-victim – The
      appellant-accused no.1 is, thus, sentenced to rigorous imprisonment
      for 10 years along with fine of Rs.50,000/- – As regards the
      appellant-accused no.2, it is observed that being an advocate, he
      was not only well read in law but owed a duty to the court being
      its officer requiring him to conduct with dignity, respect law and
      fellow beings – Having let down the community as a whole, this
      Court is not inclined to interfere with the sentence awarded to
      him vide the Trial Court Judgment, as affirmed by the Impugned
      Judgment. [Paras 26, 27, 42, 44]
      Constitution of India – Art.136 – Scope and ambit of interference
      of this Court in a criminal appeal arising out of a Special
      Leave to Appeal Petition, where concurrent findings have been
      returned by the Courts below – Discussed. [Paras 12 and 13]
      Sentencing – Relevant factors while determining sentence of
      a convict – Discussed. [Para 37]

                               Case Law Cited
      Mst Dalbir Kaur and Others v. State of Punjab [1977] 1 SCR
      280 : (1976) 4 SCC 158; Pritam Singh v. State [1950] 1 SCR
      453 : (1950) SCC 189; Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of
      Gujarat [1983] 3 SCR 28 : (1983) 3 SCC 217; Murugan v. State
      of Tamil Nadu [2018] 5 SCR 677 : (2018) 16 SCC 96; State
      of Uttar Pradesh v. Wasif Haider and Others [2018] 14 SCR
      1161 : (2019) 2 SCC 303; Kailash Gour and Others v. State of
      Assam [2011] 16 SCR 318 : (2012) 2 SCC 34; Sunil Kundu and
      Another v. State of Jharkhand [2013] 5 SCR 924 : (2013) 4 SCC
      422; Karan Singh v. State of Haryana and Another [2013] 5 SCR
      1166 : (2013) 12 SCC 529; Dayal Singh and Others v. State of
      Uttaranchal [2012] 10 SCR 157 : (2012) 8 SCC 263; Shahid
      Khan v. State of Rajasthan [2016] 2 SCR 284 : (2016) 4 SCC 96;
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                             29

                    Hakim v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.


     Vijaybhai Bhanabhai Patel v. Navnitbhai Nathubhai Patel and
     Others Noor Aga v. State of Punjab and Another [2008] 10 SCR
     379 : (2008) 16 SCC 417; Hem Chand v. State of Haryana [1994]
     Supp. 4 SCR 295 : (1994) 6 SCC 727; State of Punjab v. Manjit
     Singh and Others [2009] 9 SCR 864 : (2009) 14 SCC 31; Bavo
     alias Manubhai Ambalal Thakore v. State of Gujarat [2012] 1
     SCR 822 : (2012) 2 SCC 684; Ramnaresh and Others v. State of
     Chhattisgarh [2012] 3 SCR 630 : (2012) 4 SCC 257; Yogendra
     alias Jogendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2019] 1 SCR
     248 : (2019) 9 SCC 243; Hem Chand v. State of Haryana [1994]
     Supp. 4 SCR 295 : (1994) 6 SCC 727; State of Punjab v. Manjit
     Singh and Others [2009] 9 SCR 864 : (2009) 14 SCC 31; Bavo
     alias Manubhai Ambalal Thakore v. State of Gujarat [2012] 1 SCR
     822 : (2012) 2 SCC 684; Jameel v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2009]
     15 SCR 712 : (2010) 12 SCC 532; Gurmukh Singh v. State of
     Haryana [2009] 13 SCR 548 : (2009) 15 SCC 635 – referred to.

                                 List of Acts
     Penal Code, 1860; Constitution of India.

                              List of Keywords
     Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by using acid or corrosive
     substances; Pouring of Acid; Sentence; Relevant factors while
     determining sentence of a convict; Interference in sentence;
     Reduction of sentence; Article 136 of the Constitution; Interference
     of Supreme Court in a criminal appeal by special leave; Evidence
     appreciation; Procedural error; Ocular and medical evidence; Natural
     Justice; Re-evaluating evidence u/Art.136 of the Constitution; Motive
     or past enmity; Impulsive Act; Injury’s gravity; Accused age and
     health; Post incident conduct of accused.

                             Case Arising From
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
     5304 of 2024
     From the Judgment and Order dated 13.10.2022 of the High Court
     of Delhi at New Delhi in CRLA No. 209 of 2020
     With
     Criminal Appeal No. 5303 of 2024
30                                                         [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


                         Appearances for Parties
      Advs. for the Appellant:
      Mahabir Singh, Sr. Advs., Gagandeep Sharma, Veerendra Kumar,
      Ms. Preeti Singh.
      Advs. for the Respondents:
      Mrs. Sonia Mathur, Sr. Advs., Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Padmesh
      Mishra, Mrs. Chitrangda Rastravara, Arkaj Kumar, Mrs. Sansriti
      Pathak, Anukalp Jain, Mrs. Neelakshi Badauria, Sridhar Potaraju,
      Mrs. Vimla Sinha, Shiv Mangal Sharma, Raman Yadav, Sunil
      Kumar Jha, Amrendra Kumar Choubey, Amrit Anunay, Mithlesh Jha,
      Ms. Neetu Sharma, Ms. Shloka Vaidialingam, Shivain Vadialingam,
      Ms. Seita Vaidyalingam.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                Judgment

      Augustine George Masih, J.

1.    These two appeals i.e., Criminal Appeal No. 5304 of 2024 and Criminal
      Appeal No.5303 of 2024 assail concurrent findings of conviction
      under Section 326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC 1860”)
      and sentence thereof against Hakim (“Accused No.1”) and Umesh
      (“Accused No.2”) respectively Appellants herein, by the learned
      Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, Delhi vide Order
      dated 29.01.2020 and by the High Court of Delhi vide Judgment
      dated 13.10.2022 (“Impugned Judgment”). The Appellants were
      sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, and a fine
      of INR 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) and in default, simple
      imprisonment for a period of one year.
2.    Appellants, initially moved Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal
      (Criminal) No(s). 5874 of 2023 and 11118 of 2023 respectively, and
      delay was condoned in both the said petitions, albeit separately,
      and this Court issued notice only on the quantum of sentence. As
      the proceedings progressed, it was directed that the victim in the
      instant case, be also made a party and was accordingly impleaded
      as Respondent No.2 (“Respondent-Victim”). However, as the said
      petitions were taken up on 14.05.2024, the assertions made by the
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                          31

                    Hakim v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.


     erstwhile petitioners implied that they intended to even dispute the
     injuries caused to the Respondent-Victim. Thereafter, while reserving
     the judgments, leave to appeal was granted.
3.   The incident, as alleged by the prosecution, is that on 08.06.2014, at
     about 11:30 p.m., Bablu (“Complainant”), husband of the Respondent-
     Victim, gave a written complaint at the Govind Nagar Police Station,
     Mathura, Uttar Pradesh which resulted into registration of FIR No.130
     of 2014 dated 08.06.2014 (“FIR”), bearing Crime No. 228 of 2014.
4.   As per the complaint, at 08:00 p.m. on 08.06.2014 the Respondent-
     Victim (PW-4) was heading back home, subsequent to her visit to
     the temple of Galteshwar Mahadev, along with his sister-in-law,
     Rajjo Devi (PW-6). It is stated that the sister-in-law was a few steps
     behind the Respondent-Victim when both the Appellants along with
     Gyani (“Accused No. 3”) to take revenge blocked the way of the
     Respondent-Victim near the Govind Nagar railway crossing and told
     her that on account of she having moved a complaint against them
     to the police authorities earlier, she will face the consequences.
     Accused No.1 – Appellant and Accused No.3 held the Respondent-
     Victim while Accused No.2 – Appellant, poured acid over her and then
     ran away from the spot. Respondent-Victim started screaming in agony
     instantly. Rajjo Devi (PW-6) who was following the Victim took her to
     hospital and got her admitted. All the accused being their neighbours
     at Laxmi Nagar under the jurisdiction of Krishna Nagar Police Chowki
     of Kotwali Police Station, Mathura were known to each other.
5.   Having recorded the statements of the Respondent-Victim (PW-4)
     and Rajjo Devi (PW-6) on 09.06.2014 and 11.06.2014 respectively,
     the Investigating Officer on completion of investigation filed the Final
     Report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
     (“CrPC 1973”). Subsequent to the cognizance having been taken
     and on account of all the accused claiming to be not guilty, case was
     moved for trial before the District and Sessions Court, Mathura, Uttar
     Pradesh for offences under section 326A read with 34 IPC 1860.
6.   During the pendency of the trial, at the behest of the Complainant,
     Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 176 of 2015 was moved before this
     Court, seeking transfer of the trial to Delhi, which was allowed vide
     Order dated 01.09.2015.
32                                                                 [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                             Supreme Court Reports


7.    A total of 14 witnesses were examined by the prosecution, the
      statements of the accused under Section 313 CrPC 1973 were
      recorded and 03 witnesses in defence were produced.
8.    The Trial Court proceeded to convict the accused and pass the
      sentence as follows:

      Name       Position       Convicted    Sentence             Other details
      of the     before us      under                             (Common)
      Accused                   Section(s)
      Hakim      Appellant in 326A r/w       Rigorous             Benefit of 428
                 Crl. Appeal 34 IPC          Imprisonment         CrPC 1973 to all
                 No.5304/24 1860             for life + fine of   accused.
                 – Accused                   INR 01 Lakh
                                                                  Out of the
                 No.1                        i/d Simple
                                                                  total fine, INR
                                             Imprisonment
                                                                  1.25 Lakhs to
                                             for 01 year
                                                                  be paid to the
      Umesh      Appellant in 326A r/w       Rigorous             Respondent-
                 Crl. Appeal 34 IPC          Imprisonment         Victim as
                 No.5303/24 1860             for life + fine of   compensation
                 – Accused                   INR 01 Lakh
                 No.2                        i/d Simple           Convicts to be
                                             Imprisonment         transferred to
                                             for 01 year          Tihar Jail, Delhi
      Gyani      Not a party    326A r/w     Rigorous
                 – Accused      34 IPC       Imprisonment
                 No.3           1860         for 10 years
                                             + fine of
                                             INR 50,000/-
                                             i/d Simple
                                             Imprisonment
                                             for six months

9.    Assailing the Trial Court Judgment, all three convicts moved in appeal
      before the High Court of Delhi through Criminal Appeal No 209 of
      2020 (by Accused No.1 and Accused No.2) and Criminal Appeal No.
      365 of 2021 (by Accused No.3). The Division Bench affirmed the
      findings on conviction of the Trial Court by observing that the guilt of
      all the accused/convicts was proved beyond reasonable doubt and
      duly supported by the evidence on record. The sentence qua Accused
      Nos.1 and 2 (appellants herein) was confirmed but qua Accused
      No.3 the same was reduced to 10 years from life imprisonment vide
      Impugned Judgment dated 13.10.2022. Furthermore, it was observed
      that the Respondent-Victim deserves a compensation of at least
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                          33

                       Hakim v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.


     INR 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) and balance amount thereof
     (subject to what is received from the convicts) shall be borne by the
     State of Uttar Pradesh under Uttar Pradesh Victim Compensation
     Scheme, 2014 as the offence was committed within the jurisdiction
     of State of Uttar Pradesh.
10. Aggrieved by the Impugned Judgment of the High Court of Delhi,
    the two Appellants have moved this Court as iterated above.
11. Before we proceed further in this matter, let us first peruse and
    consider the jurisprudence, as culled out over a period of time, on
    the scope and ambit of interference of this Court in a criminal appeal
    arising out of a Special Leave to Appeal Petition, where concurrent
    findings have been returned by the courts below, as in this case.
12. This Court in Mst Dalbir Kaur and Others v. State of Punjab1,
    while dealing with a petition under Article 136 of the Constitution
    of India, seeking interference in concurrent findings of conviction,
    reassessment of evidence and credibility of witnesses, reiterated
    the ratio as laid down by this Court in Pritam Singh v. State2 and
    observed that this Court would interfere only when exceptional and
    special circumstances exist, which result in substantial and grave
    injustice having done to the accused. Furthermore, also relying on
    other decisions of this Court, the Bench went on to summarize the
    principles governing interference of this Court in a criminal appeal
    by special leave as follows: (1) it does not interfere with concurrent
    findings based solely on evidence appreciation, even if another
    view is possible; (2) it avoids reappraisal unless there’s legal or
    procedural error, misreading or inconsistency in evidence, e.g., clear
    contradiction between ocular and medical evidence; (3) it refrains
    from re-evaluating credibility of witnesses; (4) interference occurs
    where judicial process or natural justice is violated, causing prejudice;
    (5) it intervenes if findings are perverse or based on no evidence.
    Adding to the same, it clarified that this Court only ensures that the
    High Court has correctly applied these principles.
13. Strengthening this jurisprudence on interference, the decision in
    Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat3 observed that a


1   (1976) 4 SCC 158
2   (1950) SCC 189
3   (1983) 3 SCC 217
34                                                             [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


       concurrent finding of fact cannot be reopened in an appeal by special
       leave unless it is shown that the finding is based on no evidence;
       or that it is perverse, being such that no reasonable person could
       have arrived at, even if, the evidence is taken at face value; or that
       the finding is founded on inadmissible evidence which, if excluded,
       would negate or seriously impair the prosecution case; or that vital
       evidence favouring the convict has been overlooked, disregarded, or
       wrongly discarded. Furthermore, while dealing with the question of
       reappraisal or reappreciation of the evidence in the context of minor
       discrepancies, it observed that minor discrepancies in a witness’s
       testimony should not be given undue importance for several reasons.
       A witness cannot be expected to have a photographic memory
       or recall every detail, as the mind does not function like a video
       recorder. Witnesses are often overtaken by unforeseen events, and
       their faculties may not register all particulars. Observational abilities
       vary among individuals. People generally recall only the essence of
       conversations, not exact words. Time estimations are often rough
       guesses. Rapid events can confuse memory. Even truthful witnesses
       may, under court pressure or cross-examination, mix up facts or
       unconsciously fill gaps out of nervousness or fear.
14. By the same token, another Bench of this Court in Murugan v. State
    of Tamil Nadu4 reiterated the precedents, observing that it is a well-
    established legal principle that when the lower courts have returned
    concurrent findings of guilt against an accused based on proper
    appreciation of the evidence, this Court, while exercising jurisdiction
    under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, ordinarily refrains from
    re-evaluating the evidence afresh. Interference is warranted only if it is
    clearly demonstrated that the courts below failed to consider material
    evidence or that their conclusions suffer from perversity, irrationality,
    or other serious infirmities rendering the findings unreasonable or
    unjustified in law. In the absence of such grounds, the concurrent
    conclusions are not lightly disturbed by this Court.
15. With the above guiding principles in mind, we called upon the counsel
    for the parties to put forth their respective submissions.
16. Taking exception of the Impugned Judgment, learned Senior
    Advocate on behalf of the Appellants has pressed that they have


4     (2018) 16 SCC 96
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                       35

                        Hakim v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.


      been falsely implicated and that the prosecution has failed to prove
      the ingredients so as to attract the offence under Section 326A IPC
      1860. To buttress this aspect, he submits that there is no claim of
      eye injury in the FIR or the statement of the Respondent-Victim or
      the medical record. Thereby, the prosecution has failed to establish
      that the claimed eye injury was result of pouring of acid on the
      Respondent-Victim by Accused No.2. Rather, reference to multiple
      hospitals by the Respondent-Victim was an attempt to obtain a
      suitable medical report with respect to the eye injury. Reference
      has been made to the statement of DW-2, who gave statement to
      the effect that he had seen the eye of the Respondent-Victim to be
      defective prior to the incident.
17. It was further contended that in order to prove the claim that an acid
    or a chemical was poured on the Respondent-Victim, the prosecution
    was to show the source of procurement of the said substance, which
    it failed. In such a situation, the conviction under Section 326A IPC
    1860 is unsustainable in law. Alleged burns could, therefore, be
    caused by hot water. Arguing that such lapses are to the benefit of
    the accused, reliance was placed on decisions of this Court in State
    of Uttar Pradesh v. Wasif Haider and Others5, Kailash Gour and
    Others v. State of Assam 6, Sunil Kundu and Another v. State of
    Jharkhand7, Karan Singh v. State of Haryana and Another 8 and
    Dayal Singh and Others v. State of Uttaranchal 9.
18. The learned Senior Advocate further went on to assert that there is
    an inordinate delay of 11 days in recording statements of witnesses
    PW-4 and PW-6, creating a serious doubt as per observations in
    Shahid Khan v. State of Rajasthan10, and Vijaybhai Bhanabhai
    Patel v. Navnitbhai Nathubhai Patel and Others. Moreover, in
    the site plan prepared at the instance of PW-4, the presence of
    PW-6 is not indicated, therefore she is not an eye-witness. Apart
    from improvements in the testimony of Respondent-Victim, the
    prosecution has failed to establish the spot of occurrence owing to


5    (2019) 2 SCC 303
6    (2012) 2 SCC 34
7    (2013) 4 SCC 422
8    (2013) 12 SCC 529
9    (2012) 8 SCC 263
10   (2016) 4 SCC 96
36                                                         [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       contradiction in the statement of the Respondent-Victim and the site
       plan so prepared. Even further, as per PW-6, it was the police who
       took Respondent-Victim to the hospital, which does not match with
       the contents in the complaint.
19. Learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the Appellants further contented
    that the observation to the effect that the Investigating Officer was
    not bound to follow the Standard Operating Procedure prescribing
    detailed methodology vis-à-vis an acid attack case is not good in
    law. It is further submitted, while drawing equivalence with Standard
    Operating Procedures under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
    Substances Act, 1985, that such stringent procedures are mandatory
    in nature as held by this Court in Noor Aga v. State of Punjab and
    Another11 to safeguard the rights of the accused.
20. Learned Counsel states that Accused No.1 is a army personnel,
    aged above 70 years, and it is improbable for him to having been
    an accomplice in the said act.
21. On the basis of the above submissions, prayer has been made to
    allow the appeals and set aside the impugned judgments.
22. On the other hand, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of
    the Respondent No.1 (“Respondent-State”) and Respondent-Victim
    have supported the judgments of the Courts below.
23. Counsel on behalf of Respondent-Victim has referred to the evidence
    led by the prosecution to counter the submissions put forth by the
    Senior Counsel for the Appellants. He demolished the arguments
    of the Appellants and then contended that the courts below, while
    passing their respective judgments have considered all material
    evidence on facts and law laid down by this Court, and therefore,
    no interference is called for on the conviction and sentence as
    imposed on the Appellants. The appeals are devoid of merit deserving
    dismissal.
24. We have considered the arguments rendered by the parties before us.
25. The submissions, as have been made by the learned Senior Advocate
    for the Appellants, have to be considered and dealt with by restricting
    ourselves within the parameters and boundaries as laid down in the


11    (2008) 16 SCC 417
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                            37

                    Hakim v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.


     above referred judgements while navigating the jurisdictional field
     of interference.
26. Injury of the eye of the Respondent-Victim and the cause thereof,
    which stands questioned, requires to be dealt with first. As per
    the evidence led by the prosecution, different Doctors appeared
    as prosecution witnesses who had treated the victim on various
    occasions i.e., PW-5, PW-8, PW-9, PW-10, PW-11, PW-12 and
    PW-14. All of them have testified that the injuries on the skin and the
    deformity of the face, including loss of vision, albeit not fully i.e., 90%
    in the left eye of the Respondent-Victim were the result of serious
    Chemical Burn injuries. The doctors supported the prosecution’s
    case on this count as well with regard to the cause and the injuries
    itself. Prosecution has produced and proved the photograph on the
    Aadhaar Card of the Respondent-Victim where it is reflected that she
    had normal eyes and face. Therefore, this plea of the Appellants fails.
27. The question of the nature and contents of the alleged substance
    used and thrown on the victim would not arise as the possibility of
    recovery of the same does not arise as the incident was committed
    at railway crossing adjacent to the railway line where all the
    accused ran away after committing the offence. However, chemical
    burns on the person of the Respondent-Victim are substantiated
    from testimonies and medical evidence as referred to above. This
    ground also fails.
28. The explanation relating to the delay in recording of statement
    of Respondent-Victim (PW-4) and PW-6 stands explained and
    substantiated on the basis of the medical documentary evidence.
    Further, it is stated that their family was under constant threat because
    of which all had to leave Mathura to save and protect themselves
    apart from the aspect of medical treatment of the victim. The fact
    that the statements were recorded immediately on their return to
    Mathura by the police is substantiated.
29. As to the veracity of the testimony of PW-6 as an eye-witness is
    concerned, suffice it to say that she was merely 10 paces away
    from the site of occurrence and thus was well positioned not only to
    hear the conversation but also to witness the specific act and role
    of the Appellants and third accused accosting and assaulting the
    Respondent-Victim before they ran away from the spot.
38                                                         [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


30. With regard to the non-following of the Standard Operating Procedure
    by the Investigation Officer. It is enough to mention here that the
    same are procedural guidelines and not mandatory. The prosecution
    has followed due procedure and measures in the investigation.
    Hence, no interference is required by this Court as far as the said
    contention is concerned.
31. On the submission as is being sought to be projected by the Counsel
    regarding improbability of Accused No.1 of having committed the act
    as an accomplice is concerned, it may be observed that the age has
    no bearing on the crime. Even further, the Appellant had regularly
    been appearing before the Trial Court when it was observed that
    he was maintaining good health then. The plea of improbability has
    no legal force in the presence of eye-witnesses and their testimony.
    This leads us to the non-acceptance of this submission as well of
    the Appellant’s counsel.
32. In the light of the above, the judgements on which reliance have
    been placed by the Counsel for the Appellants would be of no avail
    both on facts and law.
33. Having perused and considered the Trial Court Judgment as well as
    the Impugned Judgment in detail as also the legal position, we find that
    both the courts below have dealt with the contentions raised by the
    Appellants in depth in the right perspective and we are in agreement
    with the concurrent findings thereof. Moreover, the case-at-hand does
    not fall within the circumstances permitting, requiring or calling for
    an interference by this Court, as have been discussed above. The
    view that the guilt of both, Accused No.1 and Accused No.2, has
    been proved beyond reasonable doubt is not only a plausible one
    but established. Hence, we are not inclined to interfere.
34. The decision on conviction of both the Appellants as rendered by
    the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court of Delhi, being good
    in law, is accordingly upheld to the said effect.
35. Having considered the aspect of conviction of the Appellants, we
    shall now consider the sentence that was awarded by the Trial Court
    and affirmed by the High Court of Delhi as the senior Counsel for
    the Appellants has raised the plea for reduction thereof.
36. Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants has prayed for leniency
    with regard to the sentence imposed upon them by the Courts below.
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                         39

                        Hakim v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.


      To the effect of reduction of sentence, reliance is placed on numerous
      decisions of this Court whereby this Court has taken into account
      the mitigating circumstances either for reducing the sentence or
      affirming the reduction by the concerned High Court. These being
      Hem Chand v. State of Haryana12, State of Punjab v. Manjit Singh
      and Others13, Bavo alias Manubhai Ambalal Thakore v. State of
      Gujarat14, Ramnaresh and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh15, and
      Yogendra alias Jogendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh16.
37. We have considered the decisions of this Court as relied upon
    by the Appellants, apart from others. In Jameel v. State of Uttar
    Pradesh 17 this Court, while referring to the decision in Gurmukh
    Singh v. State of Haryana18 reiterated the relevant factors while
    determining sentence of a convict. These include: (a) motive or
    past enmity; (b) whether the act was impulsive; (c) the accused’s
    intent or knowledge when causing injury; (d) whether death was
    immediate or occurred later; (e) the injury’s gravity and nature; (f)
    the accused’s age and health; (g) if the injury arose in a sudden
    fight without premeditation; (h) type and size of weapon and force
    used; (i) accused’s criminal history; (j) if death resulted from shock
    despite non-fatal injury; (k) pending cases; (l) whether within family;
    and (m) post-incident conduct.
38. We have perused the Order on Sentence dated 29.01.2020 passed
    by the Trial Court, which has been brought on record by the Accused
    No.1. The Trial Court has duly considered the circumstances
    at-hand, including the mitigating and aggravating circumstances for
    all the convicts.
39. As to the Appellants, the Trial Court observing that they are a
    father-son duo, one being a retired army personnel and the other
    an advocate respectively, therefore, had aggravated their sentence
    resulting in life imprisonment with fine. While on the other hand,
    as to Accused No.3, the fact that he was 19 years old at the time


12   (1994) 6 SCC 727
13   (2009) 14 SCC 31
14   (2012) 2 SCC 684
15   (2012) 4 SCC 257
16   (2019) 9 SCC 243
17   (2010) 12 SCC 532
18   (2009) 15 SCC 635
40                                                       [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


      the incidence took place and observing that he had a chance for
      reformation, the same was taken as a mitigating factor leading to
      the lesser sentence being imposed upon him i.e. 10 years with fine.
40. On that, the learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the Accused No.1
    has pleaded for parity with the Accused No.3, who, while being
    convicted, was awarded the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 10
    years along with fine of INR 50,000/- and in default or non-payment
    of the said fine, simple imprisonment for six months. The prayer is
    based on the similarity of their role and involvement in the offence.
41. Senior Counsel has referred to I.A. No.209652 of 2023 where the
    Accused No.1 has filed his medical records. It appears, therein, that
    he is about 73 years old and even the Senior Medical Officer of
    Central Jail, Tihar has mentioned for the Appellant to be considered
    as “seriously sick patient” on 24.07.2023. He has multiple ailments,
    namely, anaemia, PSVT, CAD, Bronchial Asthma, Hypertension,
    BPH, CKD state-IV, and Epididymo-orchitis with LUTS and therefore,
    we are conscious of the said fact. He is also under treatment from
    the Departments of Urology and Nephrology at Safdarjung Hospital,
    Delhi.
42. Therefore, considering the role in the offence, age and ailments
    being suffered by the Appellant- Accused No.1, we are inclined
    to interfere and reduce the sentence and bring it at par with the
    sentence awarded to the Accused No.3 for his role in holding the
    Respondent-Victim. The Appellant-Accused No.1 (Hakim) is, thus,
    sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years along with fine of
    INR 50,000/- and in default or non-payment of the said fine, simple
    imprisonment for six months.
43. The Trial Court Judgment and the Order on Sentence dated
    29.01.2020 stands modified to the said effect of the reduced sentence
    for the Appellant – Accused No.1 (Hakim).
44. As regards the Appellant-Accused No.2 (Umesh), it is observed that
    being an advocate, he was not only well-read in law but owed a duty
    to the court being its officer requiring him to conduct with dignity,
    respect law and fellow beings. Having let down the community as
    a whole, we are not inclined to interfere with the sentence awarded
    to him vide the Trial Court Judgment, as affirmed by the Impugned
    Judgment.
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                     41

                    Hakim v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.


45. In the light of the above, the Criminal Appeal No. 5304 of 2024
    preferred by Accused No.1 is partly allowed as mentioned above,
    while the Criminal Appeal No. 5303 of 2024 preferred by Accused
    No.2 stands dismissed.
46. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

     Result of the case: Criminal Appeal No. 5304 of 2024 is partly
                          allowed.
                          Criminal Appeal No. 5303 of 2024 is dismissed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan