A young woman named Seema (22) succumbed to injuries at a private hospital inGuwahati on 1st June, 2013 due to multiple organ failure as she had developedsevere health issues due to swallowing acid. The incident leading to the death ofSeema occurred at Guwahati Railway station on 1st May, 2013. The gruesomeincident had set the local police on their heels as the man who threw acid hadconcealed his face at the time of attack. However, investigation by police,Guwahati crime branch, led to one Sanjay sharma (26) and his accompliceMahesh Yadav (28) who were both neighbors of deceased Seema. Sanjayallegedly flung acid on Seema at the Guwahati railway Station when she wasgetting down from Rajdhani Express from Siliguri. Thereafter, Sanjay boarded thesame train back to his home at siliguri.
According to the police, Seema had secured a nursing job with the GuwahatiMedical College and Hospital (GMCH) in Guwahati. Sanjay Sharma was a hotelmanagement graduate and despite his best efforts was unemployed. Sanjay’sparents used to taunt him about his failure to get a job despite completing hiseducation and always praised Seema because of her education and career.
Sanjay used to confide in Mahesh, who was his childhood friend and used totell him about how Seema once rejected his marriage proposal and also how hisparents had ill – treated him for not being able to secure any job. Apart from this,they were in all praises for Seema as she could fetch a very good job in agovernment hospital. Mahesh treated Sanjay as his younger brother and thereforecould not bear the pain of Sanjay and suggested him that he should find Seemaalone and pressurize her not to accept the job offer and to accept his marriageproposal. He, further, suggested sanjay to threaten Seema with a bottle of acid inorder to pressurize her for the same. Sanjay wanted to disfigure Seema’s face soas to destroy her career. To teach her a lesson, Sanjay procured a bottle of acid on30th April, 2013 as soon as he came to know that Seema was leaving for Guwahatito join her new nursing job and he boarded, along with Mahesh, the same traintaken by Seemaand her family members to Guwahati on 1st May, 2013, whenSeema was getting down from Rajdhani Express from Siliguri at the Guwahatirailway station, Sanjay in opening the bottle and Sanjay allegedly threw acid onher face. Subsequently Mahesh and Sanjay fled easily covering their faces. Seemawas taken to the hospital by her family members. The doctor immediatelyconducted the surgeries and opined that the injuries were grievous.F.I.R. was lodged, statement of Seema was recorded. A case was registeredagainst both the accused under sections 302, 326 B r/w 34 IPC, 1860. Mahe absconded and was declared a proclaimed offender, while Sanjay was arrested bypolice from his home at Siliguri and the bottle of acid used in the crime, wasseized from his possession. After investigation, he was put to trial before thesessions court, at Guwahati where he pleaded not guility and claimed trial. As perthe charge sheet Sanjay threw concentrated sulfuric acid at Seema as he enviedher career growth. The session court held that Sanjay could not explain the scarswhich he had suffered as few drops of acid fell on his hands.The sessions court convicted Sanjay for the offences punishable under sections302 and 326 B of IPC 1860 and awarded him life imprisonment for the offences.
Both the sentences were to run concurrently.Sanjay, aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, appealed before High Courtseeking acquittal from the charges. Under the circumstance of the case, the sessionscourt had wrongly held Sanjay liable under Sec. 326 B IPC, by invoking Sec. 34IPC, 1860 as no common intention to commit the offence of acid attack under sec.326 B could be proved. Whereas, the state also filed an appeal against the decisionof the Sessions Court, for demanding death penalty as the case is one of the ‘rarestof rare cases’.
The case is listed for arguments before High Court. Argue for both sides.
Issues:-
1) Whether the judgment of Session’s Court punishing accused no.1 undersection 302, Section 326-B of IPC is correct?
2) Whether Punishment given by Session’s Court to Sanjay (Accused no.1) u/s326B of IPC by invoking Section 34 IPC is correct?
3) Whether the case is fit to be considered as rarest of rare?

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

1 In this case the following eight persons namely 1 Dewan Singh 2 Nag Singh 3 Bhairo Singh I of Gothuni 4 Harbons Singh 5 Harkat Singh 6 Bhairo Singh II of Kansara 7 Madho Singh and 8 Ishur Singh have ... View the full answer