Agra: A man arrested in an acid attack case spent nearly 17 months in jail before it was revealed during trial that he was wrongly implicated, and two others — both brothers — were the real culprits.
The case relates to an acid attack on May 9, 2022, in which a woman, her daughter and her son were injured. An FIR was registered under IPC sections 326A (voluntarily causing grievous hurt or disfigurement by use of acid) and 506 (criminal intimidation). Kallu, 60, a labourer, was arrested and a chargesheet was filed against him in June 2022. He remained in jail for nearly 17 months before being granted bail, while the trial began in 2023.
The complainant further said Kallu had come to check on the family after hearing their cries for help, while alleging that Rizwan and Faizan, who were involved in a property dispute with the family, wanted to harm them. “It was my mistake that I signed; my first priority was the treatment of my wife and children,” he said. The complainant said the family learnt about the case after returning to the village. In his statement, the complainant said he had caught Rizwan at the spot, while Faizan later returned and threatened him with a knife.
Rizwan had written the complaint at the time of the incident and obtained the family’s signature without reading it out to them. In the complaint, Kallu’s name was mentioned as the perpetrator by Rizwan, the complainant alleged. The injured family members were treated in Delhi and returned home around two months after the incident, by which time the chargesheet against Kallu had already been filed. The three injured gave statements attributing specific roles to the brothers, while the prosecution argued that police had not conducted a neutral investigation.
Defense Claims Wrongful Implication in Assault Case
During the ongoing trial, the complainant and family members of the injured party asserted that Kallu is not responsible for the attack. They contend that the actual perpetrators are two brothers, Rizwan and Faizan, who they believe were involved in the assault.
Defence Challenges Allegations Against Brothers
The defence team has contested the allegations against two brothers, asserting that the initial complaint and First Information Report (FIR) only implicated an individual named Kallu. They argue that claims against the brothers were introduced later in the trial, allegedly stemming from a financial dispute. Furthermore, the defence highlights a lack of evidence in the chargesheet and contends that witnesses have modified their statements during the proceedings.