[ad_1]
The Delhi High Court, while recently upholding a trial court’s decision convicting three men for throwing acid on a woman in 2014, ruled that the word “acid” used in the provision for punishment of acid attacks includes substances which are acidic in nature and can cause temporary or permanent disability.
A division bench of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Anish Dayal explained that Section 326A of the Indian Penal Code covers a situation where partial or permanent damage, burn or deformity, to any part of the body can be caused not only by an acid but by “any other means”. The HC explained the ingredients of the provision and observed: “This Court notes that the Section is predicated upon the following; (i) permanent or partial damage or deformity or burns caused to any part of the body of a person or causing grievous hurt; (ii) by throwing acid or administering acid or using any other means; (iii) with the intent or with the knowledge that it is likely to cause such injuries or hurt.”
The HC added that the legislature has Explanation 1 of Section 326B provided the meaning to the word “acid” used in Section 326A. Section 326A of the IPC states: “Whoever causes permanent or partial damage or deformity to, or bums or maims or disfigures or disables, any part or parts of the body of a person or causes grievous hurt by throwing acid on or by administering acid to that person, or by using any other means with the intention of causing or with the knowledge that he is likely to cause such injury or hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and with fine”, which shall be just and reasonable to meet the medical expenses of the treatment of the victim.
The HC went on to observe that “acid”, as per the explanation in Section 326B, includes any substance which has acidic or corrosive character of burning nature capable of causing bodily injury leading to scarce or disfigurement or temporary or permanent disability.
The appellants had challenged a December 2019 judgment of the trial court convicting them for offence under Section 326A of the IPC and sentencing two out of the three men to 10 years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs 1 Lakh each. The third man was sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs 50,000. The trial court had further held that the victim was entitled to compensation under Section 357 CrPC and out of total fine of Rs 2,50,000, an amount of Rs 1,25,000 was to be paid to her as compensation. The case was transferred by the Supreme Court from Mathura to Delhi in 2019 after the victim’s husband filed a petition.
The trial court had found that on June 8, 2014, the appellants cornered the woman and threw acid on her near a railway line in Mathura for an earlier complaint she had lodged with the police against the appellants over harassment. The HC took note of several incidents which indicated that the victim and her family had consistently been under the threat of the appellants. The HC noted one particular incident where the appellants made lewd suggestions about the woman and the proposal for prostitution.
The appellants had contended that the substance used on the woman was not acid and was not sent for examination and neither were her clothes recovered by the police. Rejecting this argument, the HC held that as the incident happened at railway lines and the appellants ran away after the assault, the substance could not be recovered for examination. “There would be no substantive residue lying there of the substance for the police to recover and examine,” the HC noted. Further the non-recovery of the victim’s burnt clothes is not a factor which could dilute the fact that an injury of this nature is not possible to be self-inflicted by any individual on himself or herself, the court noted.
Rejecting the appellants’ contention that the woman had fabricated the case by visiting different hospitals for treatment, the HC held: “It is impossible to accept that any person would go through such tremendous pain and intense medical process just in order to implicate somebody falsely for an assault. This theory is so far-fetched that it deserves to be rejected at the very threshold.”
The HC additionally referred to a July 2009 report by the Law Commission of India on the issue of acid attacks of this nature and the context in which they occur which gives a background of the legislative intention behind the insertion of Section 326A in IPC and the severity and complexity of acid attack cases in society. The report states, “… an acid attack has long-lasting consequences on the life of the victim who faces perpetual torture, permanent damage and other problems for the rest of her life. Victims normally feel worthless, afraid and modified and become social outcasts because of their appearance…Even if they are willing to pursue a normal life, there is no guarantee that society itself will treat them as normal human beings given their appearance and disabilities after an attack.”
On the aspect of compensation to the victim, the HC directed the appellants to pay the “full amount of the fine” to the victim. The HC was also of the view that the victim is entitled to compensation of at least Rs. 5,00,000. “Depending on what is finally paid as fine by the appellants and compensation received by the victim, this Court directs that the balance amount (out of total compensation of Rs. 5,00,000) be paid to the victim under Uttar Pradesh Victim Compensation Scheme, 2014 (as amended from time to time by the Government of Uttar Pradesh). Accordingly, a copy of this judgment be sent to the Secretary, State Legal Services Authority, Uttar Pradesh for information and necessary action,” the court held.
[ad_2]
Source link