Hakim vs State Of NCT Of Delhi 2025 INSC 728 - Acid Attack case - Concurrent Conviction Upheld
Constitution of India - Article 136 - 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. [Context: Supreme Court upholds concurrent conviction in acid attack case confirmed]
Criminal Trial - Sentencing - Relevant factors while determining sentence of a convict 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- Referred to Jameel v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2010) 12 SCC 532. (Para 37)
Criminal Investigation- Standard Operating Procedure - Standard Operating Procedure are procedural guidelines and not mandatory. (Para 30)
Supreme Court upholds concurrent conviction and life sentence of a lawyer in an Acid Attack case.
— CiteCase 🇮🇳 (@CiteCase) May 19, 2025
Rejecting his plea to reduce sentence, the Court said: 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… https://t.co/ekdOKeqqr4 pic.twitter.com/T2aFxzfvtN