Acid Attack Laws In India And Judicial Approach
1. ๐ Laws Related to Acid Attacks in India
A. Indian Penal Code (IPC) Amendments
Before 2013, acid attacks were not recognized as a separate offence. They were prosecuted under general provisions like:
Section 320 (grievous hurt)
Section 326 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means)
After the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, two specific sections were added:
Section 326A IPC โ Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid:
Punishment: Minimum 10 years to life imprisonment + fine
Fine is to be just and reasonable to meet medical expenses
Section 326B IPC โ Voluntarily throwing or attempting to throw acid:
Punishment: 5 to 7 years imprisonment + fine
B. Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)
Section 357A CrPC: Provides for compensation schemes by the State Legal Services Authorities for victims of acid attacks and other crimes.
C. Poison Act, 1919 (amended)
Controls and regulates the sale of acid through licensing and record maintenance.
2. โ๏ธ Judicial Approach
The Indian judiciary has played a crucial role in shaping legal reforms, ensuring compensation, regulating acid sale, and rehabilitating victims. It has consistently emphasized:
Strict punishment for offenders
Victim compensation and rehabilitation
State responsibility for medical treatment
Regulation of acid sale and distribution
3. ๐ Landmark Case Laws (Detailed)
1. Laxmi v. Union of India (2014) โ Acid Sale Regulation
Citation: (2014) 4 SCC 427
Facts: Laxmi, a victim of an acid attack in 2005, filed a PIL seeking regulation on acid sale and proper laws against acid attacks.
Judgment:
Supreme Court directed both Central and State governments to regulate over-the-counter sale of acid.
Only licensed vendors can sell acid, and buyers must provide ID and specify the reason.
Free medical treatment must be provided to victims by government and private hospitals.
Minimum compensation of โน3 lakhs was mandated by states under Section 357A CrPC.
Significance: This PIL led to framing of IPC Sections 326A and 326B and major reforms in acid sale regulation.
2. Parivartan Kendra v. Union of India (2016)
Citation: (2016) 3 SCC 571
Facts: The case was based on the plight of two Dalit girls in Bihar who were gang-raped and attacked with acid.
Judgment:
The Court expressed strong concern over the lack of implementation of rehabilitation schemes.
It reaffirmed the State's duty to ensure proper rehabilitation, financial support, and medical care for victims.
Directed that immediate steps must be taken to ensure privacy, safety, and education of victims.
Significance: Reinforced victim-centric approach and the need for holistic rehabilitation of acid attack survivors.
3. State of Maharashtra v. Ankur Panwar (Preeti Rathi Case) (2015)
Facts: Preeti Rathi, a nurse, was attacked with acid in 2013 by Ankur Panwar at a railway station in Mumbai for rejecting his marriage proposal. She later died due to severe injuries.
Judgment:
The Mumbai Sessions Court awarded death penalty under Section 302 IPC (murder) and Section 326A IPC.
It was one of the first cases where death penalty was given solely for an acid attack resulting in death.
Significance: Set a strong precedent for harsh punishment in cases where acid attacks lead to death. Demonstrated the deterrent approach of judiciary.
4. Devanand v. State (2015 Delhi HC)
Facts: The accused threw acid on the victim, a young woman, after she refused his proposal. The attack caused permanent disfigurement and loss of vision.
Judgment:
Delhi High Court upheld life imprisonment under Section 326A IPC.
Emphasized the irreversible damage to victimโs physical and emotional health.
Highlighted that refusal of love/affection/marriage cannot justify violence.
Significance: Reaffirmed judiciaryโs zero tolerance toward acid attacks driven by wounded male ego or rejection.
5. Samarjeet Singh v. State of Haryana (2019 Punjab & Haryana HC)
Facts: The accused threw acid on his wife due to domestic disputes. The victim sustained 60% burns.
Judgment:
Court imposed strict sentence under Section 326A IPC.
Reiterated the gravity of domestic acid violence, not just street crimes.
Ordered the State to ensure long-term rehabilitation, not just one-time compensation.
Significance: Expanded the understanding that acid attacks occur in domestic contexts too, not just public spaces.
6. Vandana v. State of UP (2020)
Facts: The victim, Vandana, was attacked by her employer after a wage dispute. She was disfigured and partially blinded.
Judgment:
Court directed the State Legal Services Authority to provide monthly financial aid and job support.
Held that economic vulnerability makes women more susceptible to such crimes.
Significance: Linked acid attacks with economic exploitation and employment abuse, stressing protective mechanisms.
Conclusion
๐ Key Takeaways:
Acid attacks are now separately recognized and punished under IPC Sections 326A and 326B.
Judiciary has consistently taken a victim-centric approach, emphasizing compensation, rehabilitation, and deterrence.
Laxmi case led to major legal reforms and regulation of acid sale.
Courts have upheld strict punishments including life imprisonment and death penalty in extreme cases.
State has been made responsible for victim care, free treatment, and long-term support.
RELATED Blog
0 comments