Delhi Court: Acid Attack Acquittal After Evidence Destroyed

• A Delhi court acquitted Preet Pal and three others in a 2019 acid attack case on September 28, 2026.
• The acquittal was primarily due to an unexplained 18-month delay in filing the FIR and the destruction of the victim's burnt clothes in a police malkhana fire.
• The sole eyewitness's testimony contained material contradictions, as she admitted not seeing who threw the acid and introduced new details later.
• The accused were charged under BNS Sections 124, 232, and 351, but the prosecution "miserably failed" to prove its case.
• The court cited precedents like *Thulia Kali v. State of Tamil Nadu* regarding the impact of unexplained delays on the prosecution's credibility.

The Delhi Court acid attack acquittal evidence destroyed and the 18-month FIR delay were central to the court's finding that the prosecution failure acid attack case India was complete, offering significant grounds for the acquittal of Preet Pal and the other accused, even in a serious case involving charges under BNS 124, 232, and 351.

A Delhi court has acquitted four individuals, including Preet Pal, his father Ramesh, Suresh Chand, and Bablu Kumar, in a 2019 acid attack case, citing significant procedural lapses and a failure by the prosecution to substantiate its allegations. Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Hargurvarinder Singh Jaggi of the Saket District Courts delivered the 39-page judgment on September 28, 2026, more than seven years after the alleged incident.

The accused had faced charges under Sections 124 (throwing or attempting to throw acid), 232 (threatening a witness), and 351 (criminal intimidation) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which replaced the Indian Penal Code (IPC) on July 1, 2024, read with Section 34. The court's decision highlighted a critical 18-month delay in registering the First Information Report (FIR), the destruction of crucial evidence, and material contradictions in the testimony of the sole eyewitness, ultimately concluding that the prosecution had "miserably failed" to prove its case.

The case originated from a complaint filed by Renu, who alleged that on July 9, 2019, while she was returning home near Shiv Mandir in Sangam Vihar, four men on two motorcycles attacked her. She claimed that acid was thrown on her back and waist from behind. Upon turning around, she reportedly saw Preet Pal holding a bottle. The complainant further stated that the men threatened her, demanding she withdraw a previous POCSO Act case she had filed against Pal, and warned they would harm her daughter if she refused.

Passersby reportedly assisted the victim by pouring water on her, and a PCR call was made, leading to her transportation to Safdarjung Hospital. Medical records from the hospital indicated 1% chemical burn injuries on her back and waist. A subsequent forensic analysis confirmed the presence of hydrochloric acid on her seized clothing, providing initial corroboration of an acid attack.

Despite the immediate medical attention and evidence collection, a significant and unexplained 18-month delay plagued the registration of the FIR. Although police recorded the complainant's statement and seized her clothes on the day of the incident, the FIR was not filed until January 7, 2021. The investigating officer, ASI Ramesh Chand, admitted during cross-examination that he had no explanation for this prolonged delay, which the court deemed "fatal."

Further compounding the prosecution's difficulties was the destruction of the victim's burnt clothes, which were lost in a fire at the police malkhana (evidence room). This loss deprived the court of key physical evidence. Moreover, the testimony of the complainant, who was the sole eyewitness, was found to be inconsistent. She conceded in cross-examination that she only turned around *after* feeling the burning sensation, implying she did not directly witness who threw the liquid. Additionally, she introduced a new detail—that the incident occurred behind the temple—during a recalled cross-examination, a claim absent from her original complaint, which the court noted as an "improvement" in her narrative.

The Saket Court acid attack acquittal underscored the critical importance of procedural integrity and timely action in criminal investigations. The judgment specifically referenced the precedents set in *Thulia Kali v. State of Tamil Nadu* (1972) and *Dilawar Singh v. State of Delhi* (2007), which highlight how an unexplained delay in registering an FIR can provide ample opportunity for consultation, deliberation, and potentially false implication, thereby compromising the spontaneity and credibility of the prosecution's case. The court emphasized that such delays strike at the very root of a fair legal process.

This ruling serves as a strong reminder of the prosecution's burden to maintain meticulous records, handle evidence diligently, and ensure timely FIR registration. The Delhi Court acid attack acquittal evidence destroyed and the 18-month FIR delay were central to the court's finding that the prosecution failure acid attack case India was complete, offering significant grounds for the acquittal of Preet Pal and the other accused, even in a serious case involving charges under BNS 124, 232, and 351.

This ruling provides a strong precedent for defense lawyers challenging criminal charges, particularly where there are significant, unexplained delays in FIR registration or where crucial evidence has been compromised or destroyed. It underscores the prosecution's burden to maintain procedural integrity and handle evidence diligently, offering grounds for acquittal even in serious cases.

Source: Original reporting via India Today