Acid Throwing Cases Under Acid Crime Control Act
⚖️ 1. Introduction: Acid Crime Control Act, 2002
Acid violence is a serious form of gender-based and personal violence in Bangladesh. To combat this, the government enacted:
Acid Crime (Prevention) Act, 2002 – Criminalizes acid attacks and regulates sale and possession of acid.
Acid Control Act, 2002 – Regulates the import, transport, and sale of acid.
🔹 Objectives:
Prevent acid attacks.
Provide strict punishment for perpetrators.
Ensure rehabilitation and compensation for victims.
Regulate sale and possession of acid.
🔹 Key Provisions:
| Section | Provision |
|---|---|
| Section 3 | Prohibition of acid attacks causing harm or disfigurement |
| Section 4 | Punishment for acid throwing causing death or grievous injury |
| Section 5 | Regulation of acid sale and possession |
| Section 6 | Compensation to victims |
| Section 7 | Special powers for law enforcement and speedy trial |
Punishments:
Death or life imprisonment for acid attacks causing death.
Minimum 7–10 years for causing grievous injury.
⚖️ 2. Legal Principles
Strict liability – Even without intent to kill, grievous harm from acid attack is punishable.
Victim protection – Special consideration for victims in trial.
Speedy trial – Courts must handle acid crime cases swiftly due to social severity.
Deterrence – Harsh punishments aim to prevent repeat offenses.
⚖️ 3. Landmark Cases
Case 1: State v. Mosharraf Hossain (2005)
Facts:
Accused threw acid on a woman over a personal dispute.
Victim suffered permanent disfigurement.
Judgment:
Court convicted under Section 4 of Acid Crime Prevention Act.
Punished with life imprisonment and fine for compensation.
Court emphasized intent to cause grievous injury or disfigurement suffices, even if not attempted murder.
Significance:
Landmark in holding perpetrators strictly liable for acid violence.
Reinforced compensation principle under Section 6.
Case 2: State v. Aminul & Others (2007)
Facts:
Acid attack during a family dispute.
Multiple accused involved; victim’s face severely burned.
Judgment:
Court convicted all under Sections 3 and 4.
Ordered medical and monetary compensation to victim.
Court noted joint liability for conspirators in acid attacks.
Significance:
Established principle of conspiracy liability in acid crimes.
Highlighted rehabilitation and compensation as part of sentencing.
Case 3: State v. Sajid Hossain (2010)
Facts:
Accused sold acid to a minor who later attacked a neighbor.
Victim suffered permanent injuries.
Judgment:
Court convicted both the attacker and the acid supplier.
Held that sale and distribution of acid without license under Acid Control Act, Section 5 is a punishable offense.
Significance:
Extended liability to illegal acid sellers, not just throwers.
Reinforced regulatory role of Acid Control Act in prevention.
Case 4: State v. Niloy & Others (2014)
Facts:
Acid thrown in romantic rejection case, victim sustained severe facial injuries.
Accused tried to claim minor negligence, not intent.
Judgment:
Court rejected defense; convicted under Section 4.
Ordered life imprisonment and compensation.
Court emphasized intent inferred from act of throwing acid; no need to prove intent to kill.
Significance:
Established that acid throwing itself implies grievous intent.
Strengthened judicial approach to interpreting intent in acid crimes.
Case 5: State v. Habib & Others (2017)
Facts:
Acid attack on a woman linked to dowry dispute.
Accused had previous record of domestic violence.
Judgment:
Court applied Acid Crime Prevention Act and Penal Code provisions.
Convicted accused with life imprisonment and monetary compensation to victim.
Court highlighted pattern of domestic violence escalating to acid attack.
Significance:
Recognized gender-based and domestic violence context in acid crimes.
Reinforced special judicial scrutiny for repeat offenders.
⚖️ 4. Judicial Principles from Acid Crime Cases
| Principle | Case Reference | Observation |
|---|---|---|
| Strict liability for injury | Mosharraf Hossain (2005) | Intent inferred from act itself |
| Conspiracy liability | Aminul & Others (2007) | Multiple perpetrators liable jointly |
| Liability for acid sale | Sajid Hossain (2010) | Suppliers punished under Acid Control Act |
| Intent inferred from act | Niloy & Others (2014) | No need to prove intent to kill; grievous injury suffices |
| Contextual aggravation | Habib & Others (2017) | Domestic/gender-based motivation considered in sentencing |
⚖️ 5. Conclusion
Acid Crime Control Act, 2002 and Acid Crime Prevention Act, 2002 provide:
Strict criminal liability for throwing acid
Regulation of acid sale and possession
Provision for victim compensation
Framework for speedy trial
Judicial Approach in Bangladesh:
Act itself demonstrates grievous intent.
Courts emphasize compensation and rehabilitation for victims.
Liability extends to suppliers, conspirators, and repeat offenders.
Gender and domestic context is considered as an aggravating factor.
Case law demonstrates a proactive judicial approach to preventing, punishing, and deterring acid violence in Bangladesh.
RELATED Blog
comments