You are currently viewing ‘Face not visible’: Gujarat woman convicted of acid attack in burkha gets bail; had attacked the man after he walked out of the relationship

‘Face not visible’: Gujarat woman convicted of acid attack in burkha gets bail; had attacked the man after he walked out of the relationship

On January 27, 2024, an individual wearing a burqa threw acid at Rakesh Brahmbhatt, a bus conductor, near the Kalupur Railway Station in Ahmedabad. He suffered severe injuries to his left eye, back, and private parts.

The prosecution claimed Chhuvara attacked Brahmbhatt out of “malice and jealousy” after he chose to end their five-year relationship.

In July 2026, the Ahmedabad City Civil and Sessions Court convicted Chhuvara, sentencing her to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and imposing a ₹1 lakh fine.

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 said.

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. 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 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 then relied on the Supreme Court’s decisions to suspend the sentence till the appeal is decided.



Leave a Reply