Acid attack case: Gujarat High Court grants interim relief to woman awarded 10-year sentence

Convicted this past July for launching an acid attack on a man, a woman has received interim relief from the Gujarat High Court, which suspended the 10-year sentence awarded to her for the time being, after observing that her identification was not “established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt”.

The HC was hearing an appeal filed by Mahezbinbanu Chhuvara against her conviction and granted the interim suspension of sentence pending final hearing in the appeal. Justice Vimal K Vyas passed the judgment in the interlocutory application on Monday, noting several prima facie gaps in the prosecution evidence, including the identification of the assailant, the CCTV footage and the failure to seize the clothes and gloves allegedly worn by the accused.

In July, the Ahmedabad City Civil & Sessions Court convicted the 42-year-old woman for launching an acid attack on the complainant, Rakesh Brahmbhatt (51), out of "malice and jealousy" after he allegedly ended their relationship.

She was awarded 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and slapped with a fine of Rs 1 lakh. The HC judgment noted that "the identification of the present applicant-convict has not been established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt”.

The prosecution case was that an attack on Brahmbhatt, a bus conductor, occurred around 8.30 pm on January 27, 2024, when he was at AMTS Control Cabin No. 7 near the Pumping Station at Kalupur Railway Station in Ahmedabad.

According to the prosecution’s case, Chhuvara and her friend Meet Sharma approached Brahmbhatt. Sharma allegedly gave her a plastic can containing acid, which she allegedly threw at Brahmbhatt. The prosecution said she then fled the spot.

Brahmbhatt suffered injuries to his right eye, back and private parts and was taken to a hospital. The High Court, however, noted that the evidence regarding the person seen fleeing the scene did not conclusively establish Chhuvara's identity.

“Except the complainant, all saw a person clad in a burqa running away from the cabin towards Kalupur Railway Station and the face of the person was not visible,” the judgment recorded. It further noted that Brahmbhatt himself admitted that “it cannot be said with certainty that the person seen in the CCTV footage clad with a burqa was a man or a woman.” The court recorded his admission that “in the CCTV footage, the face of the person is not visible”.

The court also noted the absence of certain physical evidence. “…the clothes and gloves worn by the applicant-accused at the time of the occurrence were not even seized by the police.” The court also noted that the plastic can allegedly containing the corrosive liquid had not been recovered either.

The defence also pointed to the absence of evidence establishing the alleged relationship between Chhuvara and Brahmbhatt, including WhatsApp messages, chats, photographs or call detail records. The prosecution, however, opposed the application and relied on the evidence of the complainant, investigating officer, alleged eyewitness and medical officer.

The High Court also noted that Brahmbhatt's son was relied upon as an eyewitness. According to the son's deposition, he had been waiting near his father's cabin when he heard screams. He then saw “a lady clad in a black burqa running away from his father’s cabin towards Kalupur Railway Station” and took his father to the GCS Hospital.

The High Court, however, found a contradiction regarding his presence at the scene, noting that, although the prosecution said Brahmbhatt had immediately been taken to GCS Hospital, the medical officer's evidence indicated that he was brought for treatment by his brother with a referral note.

“No medical papers of the GCS Hospital have been produced on record by the prosecution,” the order states. The HC said that it "prima facie appears that the version as narrated by the complainant is doubtful", with no independent witnesses to the incident or other incriminating evidence on record "to connect the present applicant-convict with the alleged offence.” The court stressed that these observations were being made while deciding the application for suspension of sentence and not while finally deciding the criminal appeal.