Add thelocalreport.in As A Trusted Source
In an order dated December 24, 2025 and made available on Sunday, Additional Sessions Judge Jagmohan Singh acquitted Yashwinder, Bala and Mandeep, who were accused of criminal conspiracy with a juvenile to carry out an acid attack on MBA student Shaheen Malik in Haryana’s Panipat.
The teenager was convicted of the crime on 17 December 2015.
“From the very beginning, the investigation was conducted in a very careless and unprofessional manner, with no sensitivity to the fact that this was a case of acid attack,” the court said in its judgment.
“The shoddy manner in which the investigation was conducted makes one wonder whether it was done to protect the culprits,” it said.
It said that for several years after the incident on 19 November 2009, the police took no meaningful steps to identify the culprits and instead filed a “no trace report” in March 2010. The court said that the victim’s statement was recorded only in October 2013.
Judge Singh pointed out serious lapses, including the failure to deposit critical case property – such as the victim’s burnt bag and the glass used to throw acid – in the repository and send them for forensic analysis.
The court said no efforts were made to verify the alleged purchase of acid, conduct test identification parades, collect call detail records, seize mobile phones of the accused or collect electronic evidence to establish the conspiracy.
It said the supervisory police officers failed in their duty by mechanically forwarding the trace reports and charge sheets without investigation.
The judge said, “In view of the above lapses, one wonders whether the investigation was carried out deliberately and to tarnish the prosecution’s case.”
The court ordered Panipat Superintendent of Police (SP) to investigate the lapses, fix responsibility of the guilty officers and take appropriate action within 30 days. The SP was also directed to file a compliance report before the court.
According to the prosecution, Malik was attacked with acid in 2009 when she had gone to Panipat to work as a student counselor in a college owned by Yashvinder. He also enrolled for the MBA program at Punjab Technical University.
The prosecution claimed that she faced harassment from Yashvinder at her workplace. It alleged that Yashwinder’s wife Bala conspired with two university students, Mandeep Mann and Kishore, to attack Malik.
In 2013, the case was transferred from Panipat to Rohini Court of Delhi.
Bala was charged under sections 120B (criminal conspiracy), 326 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt) and 308 (attempt to commit culpable homicide) of the Indian Penal Code, while Yashvinder was charged under sections 364A (kidnapping), 376 (rape), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 511 (attempt to commit murder).
Mandeep was prosecuted under sections 120B, 326 and 308 of the IPC.
In its 53-page order, the court said it had “reasonable sympathy” towards Malik, but apart from the strong suspicion raised by him, which cannot replace legal evidence, there was no evidence against the accused.
“The prosecution has failed to prove any of the allegations against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused Yashwinder, Bala and Mandeep are acquitted of the offenses charged,” it said.
However, the court underlined that acid attack is a heinous crime.
The court said, “The fact cannot be denied that the victim is a victim of acid attack. It is also well documented that due to the acid attack she had to suffer innumerable pain and had to undergo 18 surgeries. It is also a fact that due to the acid attack she lost the vision of one eye completely and the vision of the other eye could be restored only partially.”
It says victims of acid attacks have to deal with wounds to their psyche and anguish to their soul.
Regarding the allegations against Yashvinder, the court said, “There is nothing in the entire testimony of the prosecutrix that she ever informed Yashvinder’s aforesaid violent and aggressive behavior to his wife, who, according to the prosecutrix, taught in the college. Nor did she seek any help from Bala in quitting her job, whereas the prosecutrix knew that Yashvinder and Bala used to quarrel because of Yashvinder’s behavior towards the prosecutrix.”
It said the circumstances of the case strengthened the conclusion that there was an emotional attachment between the victim and Yashvinder beyond the normal employer-employee relationship.
The judge said, reasonable doubt arises about the statement of the prosecutor regarding the alleged attempt of rape by Yashvinder.
The court underlined that there were “serious doubts” regarding other allegations in the absence of corroborating evidence other than the victim’s testimony.
On Bala’s role, the court said that the victim has only expressed suspicion that she too was involved in the conspiracy, but suspicion cannot replace the need for proof.
Similarly, there is no evidence against the third accused Mandeep also.
The court said, “There is nothing on record to show that the above two accused had a prior meeting among themselves and with the (convict) CCL (child in conflict with law) to throw acid. The investigating officer also did not collect any call detail records between the above two accused, nor did he collect any CCTV footage in support of the allegation.”
Earlier, speaking to PTI, the victim’s lawyer Madia Shehjar had said, “This decision will be challenged in the Delhi High Court and, if necessary, in the Supreme Court.”
On December 4, the Supreme Court, hearing a PIL filed by the victim, termed the slow hearing in acid attack cases as a “mockery of the system” and directed all high courts to submit details of such pending cases across the country within four weeks.
The apex court termed the long delay in Malik’s case as a “national shame” and directed the hearing to be conducted on a day-to-day basis.