Signing you in

Justice Vimal K Vyas granted relief to Mahezbinbanu Chhuvara on Monday after noting several gaps in the prosecution’s evidence, including its failure to seize the clothes and gloves allegedly worn by the attacker.

The 42-year-old woman was convicted by the Ahmedabad City Civil and Sessions Court of an acid attack on Rakesh Brahmbhatt (51), a bus conductor with the Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service (AMTS). Chhuvara allegedly attacked Brahmbhatt out of ‘malice and jealousy’ after he walked out of a relationship with her. She was sentenced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and fined Rs 1 lakh.

The High Court 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 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. According to the prosecution case, Chhuvara and her friend Meet Sharma approached Brahmbhatt. Sharma allegedly handed her a plastic can containing acid, which she allegedly threw at Brahmbhatt, saying, “Why don’t you keep a relationship with me?” The prosecution said she fled the spot. Brahmbhatt suffered injuries to his right eye, back and private parts.

The High Court noted that the evidence regarding the person seen fleeing did not conclusively establish Chhuvara’s identity. “… all have seen 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 records.

It noted that Brahmbhatt 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 also recorded his admission that “in the CCTV footage, the face of the person is not visible.”

The court also noted the absence of physical evidence. Referring to the evidence of the investigating officer, the judgment states, “It prima facie appears from the evidence of the Investigating Officer Ishwarbhai Gamit that the clothes and the hand-gloves worn by the applicant-accused at the time of the occurrence were not even seized by the police.”

The court also said the plastic can allegedly containing the corrosive liquid had not been recovered. The defence had 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 High Court noted that Brahmbhatt’s son, Om, was relied upon as an eyewitness. According to the son’s deposition, he had been waiting near his father’s cabin after delivering a tiffin 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 a hospital.

The High Court found a contradiction. It noted that although the prosecution said Brahmbhatt was immediately taken to GCS Hospital, the medical officer’s evidence indicated that he was brought by his brother with a referral note. “No medical papers of the GCS Hospital have been produced on record by the prosecution,” the ruling states.

The court said that it “prima facie appears that the version as narrated by the complainant is doubtful”, with no independent witnesses 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 about the appeal against conviction.

Chhuvara has already spent eight months behind bars. Her criminal appeal was admitted on July 23, and the court noted “very remote chances” of it being heard in the near future. The court then relied on the Supreme Court’s decisions to suspend the sentence till the appeal is decided.

The court ruled Chhuvara should be released on bail on a fresh bond of Rs 15,000 with one surety of the same amount. She has been asked not to leave India without the High Court’s permission.