ABUZAR AYYAZ TAMBOLI v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.
Conviction Sustained Under Section 326-A IPC Based on Hostile Witness Admissions and Chemical Evidence; POCSO Charges Quashed Absent Proof of Sexual Intent.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:9713
Decision Date: 25-02-2026
List of Laws
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 326-A, 354-D, 506); Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (Sections 3, 10, 12); The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 164, 313); The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Appreciation of Hostile Witness Evidence); Probation of Offenders Act
- Facts: The victim and the accused were friends prior to the victim's marriage. Following her marriage, the accused allegedly harassed her, prompting her to meet him on November 23, 2020, to ask him to stop. During this meeting, the accused threatened her and threw an acidic liquid on her face, causing severe burn injuries. While the victim and several witnesses, including her father, were declared hostile during the trial for not supporting the prosecution's initial narrative, the victim, during cross-examination by the APP, admitted that the accused threw the liquid after telling her he would "break her pride". Chemical analysis confirmed the presence of nitrate ions on the accused's clothes, and medical evidence established the injuries were caused by acid.
- Procedural Posture: The Appellant was convicted by the Special Court for offences under Sections 326-A, 354-D, and 506 of the IPC, and Sections 10 and 12 of the POCSO Act, receiving a maximum sentence of 10 years. He challenged this conviction before the Bombay High Court.
- Issue: 1) Whether the conviction can be sustained based on the testimony of a hostile witness and circumstantial chemical evidence. 2) Whether the act of throwing acid on a minor, in the absence of sexual intent, attracts the provisions of the POCSO Act.
- Holding: 1) Yes, the conviction under Section 326-A of the IPC is sustained. 2) No, the conviction under the POCSO Act is set aside because the act lacked "sexual intent".
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the testimony of a hostile witness is not discarded in its entirety; relevant and reliable portions can be used. The victim's admission in cross-examination, coupled with the detection of nitrate ions on the accused's clothes which he failed to explain under Section 313 Cr.P.C., conclusively proved his guilt. Regarding POCSO, the Court held that since the act did not constitute "sexual assault" as defined under Section 3 of the Act and lacked sexual intent, those charges were inapplicable. However, as Section 326-A IPC carries a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years, no leniency in sentencing could be granted despite the appellant's young age.
🔒 For Members Only