State of Maharashtra v. Ankur Panwar (2019)  

Facts Of the Case 

•  . Preeti Rathi, a 23-year-old girl, resided in New Delhi’s Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB) Colony. She was a gifted young woman who wanted to become a nurse. The accused, Preeti Rathi’s neighbour, Ankur Panwar, had completed hotel management at an institute but was subsequently unemployed. The victim turned down the accused’s proposal of marriage and stated that she was still willing to pursue her career. The accused was jealous of the victim’s achievement in addition to the anger he had grown towards her for turning down the marriage proposal. The accused’s parents always used to compare him with the victim, stating that she was so bright and intelligent and even had got a job, but the accused was still unemployed. The victim had got a job opportunity as a staff nurse in Colaba Naval Hospital, INS Ashwini, in Mumbai. She boarded the Garibrath Express and landed at Bandra Terminus, where soon after debarking the train, the accused tapped on her shoulder, and as she turned back, someone splashed acid on her face, which also affected some passers-by. Even though the station was overly crowded, no one could catch the accused. The sufferer also sustained some severe and maybe lethal injuries after inadvertently swallowing the acid. After fighting for her life for about a month, she had to be admitted to the hospital right away, where she passed away. She used to ask for her employment and the safety of her younger sister whenever she regained consciousness during her hospital stay. In her final declaration, when she was unable to talk and could only scribble on a paper, she requested not to be admitted to any pricey hospitals. These situations all demonstrate the difficulties faced by middle-class individuals and the worries of women. A year after her death, the accused was arrested. He confessed that he was jealous of the victim and wanted to disfigure her and harm her, and so he bought concentrated sulphuric acid from a workshop near his residence and followed the victim on the same train. As the victim disembarked, he threw the acid on her and boarded another train departing from the station. He lied to his family that he was in Gurgaon for the purpose of a job, whereby he was staying at one of his friend’s homes in Gurgaon. This case was taken up by the special Women Court before J. Anju S. Shende.

Issues of The Case

• Whether the Supreme Court’s and other authorities’ existing laws and regulations were insufficient to stop acid assaults in India.
• Whether, in accordance with Bangladesh’s Acid Crime Suppression Act, the death penalty is a suitable response in cases of murder brought on by an acid assault, and whether such laws are necessary in India as well.
• Whether the accused’s identification by members of the Test Identification Parade (T.I. Parade) was trustworthy and acceptable as proof.

Judgement: 

Following an analysis of the case’s facts and circumstances, the court issued a 150-page ruling that said the following: It is necessary to send a clear message to these criminals that crimes against women will not be accepted in any way. Since this was the first time in Indian history that a woman had died as a result of an acid attack, the crime must be stopped right once to avoid the possibility that such a horrible act could spread swiftly and widely. The court also recognised and thoroughly examined the impact of this horrible crime, concluding that it is one of the rarest of the rare situations. The court further noted that, to the best of its knowledge, no one who had committed such a crime had ever received a punishment. To present, compensation has been the only sanctioned punishment. Given the seriousness of the act committed and in accordance with the Supreme Court’s current stance on such matters, the court felt compelled to impose a deterrent punishment on the accused. Hence, the court, being fully aware of the nature of death penalties and their need in the present instances of the case, held that the accused shall be sentenced to death. Apart from the death penalty, the court also imposed a fine of Rs.5000 on the accused and ordered it to be paid to the parents of the victim.

Reasoning

The following main ideas form the basis of the judgement’s reasoning:

1. Brutality of the Crime: Preeti Amarsingh Rathi was the victim of a premeditated acid attack by the accused at Bandra Terminus, which resulted in severe burns and her eventual death

2. Medical Evidence: The victim needed extensive medical care due to life-threatening injuries, including a tracheo-oesophageal fistula. Her death from septicaemia brought on by acid burns was verified by the postmortem.

 3. Eyewitness Testimonies: A sketch was made when witnesses, including family members and onlookers, recognised and described the attacker.

4. Victim’s Statement: Prior to passing away, Preeti was able to write down her thoughts and name potential suspects.

 5. Findings from the Forensic and Investigation: At the crime scene, the police found a plastic container that had acid residue. The prosecution’s case was bolstered by forensic reports and spot panchanama.

  6. Legal Provisions Applied: After the victim passed away, the case was changed from IPC Sections 307 (attempt to kill), 326A, and 326B (acid attack) to Section 302 (murder).

7. Judicial Decision: The offender was found guilty under IPC Section 302 and given the death punishment by the court after taking into account the horrific nature of the crime and the evidence that was provided. The culprit was also fined and given a five-year harsh jail sentence under Section 326B. The court’s ruling acknowledges the gravity of acid attacks and guarantees severe penalties to discourage such offences.

Conclusion 

In the 2019 case of State of Maharashtra v. Ankur Panwar, the court found Ankur Panwar guilty of Preeti Rathi’s death-causing acid assault. The accused’s identification in a test identification parade, forensic evidence proving the presence of sulphuric acid, and compelling eyewitness accounts all supported the conviction. The prosecution was successful in proving Panwar’s motivation for the attack was unrequited love and envy. Setting a precedent for severe punishment in acid attack cases, the court recognised the heinousness of the crime and its permanent repercussions by giving him a death sentence.

References

• https://www.thelaws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/Case?caseId=319102139000&title=state-of-maharashtra-vs-ankur-narayanlal-panwar
• SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
• https://www-thehindu-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.thehindu.com/news/cities/mumbai/acid-attack-hc-reduces-death-to-life/article27892594.ece/amp/?amp_gsa=1&amp_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQIUAKwASCAAgM%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=17432544972751&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thehindu.com%2Fnews%2Fcities%2Fmumbai%2Facid-attack-hc-reduces-death-to-life%2Farticle27892594.ece
• https://indiankanoon.org

This article is written by Shubham, an intern under Legal Vidhiya

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.

Karan Chhetri

‘Social Media Head’ of Legal Vidhiya.

‘Case Analyst’ ⚖️