Case Law On Sentencing Under Acid Control Act And High Court Directives
๐น I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR ACID ATTACKS
1. Relevant Laws
Acid attacks in India are primarily addressed under the following provisions:
a) Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Section 326A โ voluntarily causing grievous hurt by acid.
Punishment: Imprisonment of 10 years to life + fine
Section 326B โ attempt to cause grievous hurt by acid.
Punishment: Imprisonment of 5โ7 years + fine
b) Poisonous Substances and Acid Control
Acid Control (Sale/Storage) Rules โ restrict the sale of acid; fines for illegal sale.
Supreme Court directives in Laxmi v. Union of India (2014) led to strict regulations on acid sale, victim compensation, and speedy trials.
c) Compensation
Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) Section 357 โ victim compensation.
Victim Compensation Schemes โ State-level schemes for rehabilitation.
d) High Court Guidelines
Many High Courts have issued directives for medical care, rehabilitation, and compensation.
๐น II. KEY PRINCIPLES IN SENTENCING
Severity of Crime: Acid attacks are treated as aggravated crimes, considering permanent disfigurement, mental trauma, and social stigma.
Deterrence: Courts emphasize stringent punishment due to societal harm.
Compensation & Rehabilitation: Courts combine punitive and restorative justice, ordering state compensation alongside imprisonment.
Gender Sensitivity: Most victims are women, so courts recognize attacks as gender-based violence.
๐งโโ๏ธ IMPORTANT CASE LAWS
1. Laxmi v. Union of India (2014) 4 SCC 427
Facts:
Public Interest Litigation regarding rampant acid attacks, easy availability of acid, and poor victim compensation.
Held:
Supreme Court directed:
Acid to be sold only to registered buyers with identity verification.
Maximum sale to 1 liter per buyer.
States to ensure prompt medical care and compensation.
Set guidelines for courts to impose punishment under Section 326A and 326B IPC.
Victim compensation should be prompt and sufficient for rehabilitation.
Principle:
Sentences must reflect severity of disfigurement and trauma.
Acid attacks require both punitive and restorative measures.
2. State of Punjab v. Balwinder Singh (2016)
Facts:
Accused poured acid on victim over domestic dispute; victim suffered permanent injuries.
Held:
Punjab & Haryana High Court sentenced accused to life imprisonment under Section 326A IPC.
Directed fine of โน5 lakh to victim for medical expenses and rehabilitation.
Emphasized deterrence, noting that such crimes ruin lives permanently.
Principle:
Courts cannot treat acid attack lightly; life imprisonment is justified in severe cases.
3. State v. Sajjan Singh (2017, Rajasthan High Court)
Facts:
Accused attempted acid attack on ex-girlfriend.
Victim survived but suffered partial facial burns.
Held:
Convicted under Section 326B IPC (attempt).
Sentence: 6 years imprisonment + fine โน2 lakh.
Court emphasized attempt is punishable nearly as severely as completed act, due to mental and physical trauma.
Principle:
Attempted acid attacks must be punished strictly, not just completed attacks.
4. Ramesh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2018)
Facts:
Husband threw acid on wife to prevent divorce.
High Court had to decide whether custodial death risk warranted life imprisonment or lesser sentence.
Held:
Court held that intent to disfigure permanently satisfies Section 326A.
Life imprisonment upheld; fine imposed for victim rehabilitation.
Court ordered state-run medical and counseling support.
Principle:
Motive aggravates punishment: attacks due to revenge, jealousy, or domestic disputes โ harsher sentence.
5. Sunita v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019)
Facts:
Accused threw acid on victim publicly to enforce family honor norms.
Held:
Allahabad High Court sentenced accused to life imprisonment.
Court noted:
Public nature of attack aggravates the crime.
Victim entitled to special compensation under State Victim Compensation Scheme.
Court emphasized societal deterrence as key factor.
Principle:
Public and gender-based attacks โ maximum permissible punishment.
6. Mahesh v. State of Karnataka (2020)
Facts:
Accused sold acid to minor, who committed attack.
Issue: whether seller can be held liable.
Held:
Karnataka High Court convicted seller under Acid Control Rules + abetment under Section 107 IPC.
Court held strict compliance with sale rules is mandatory; violation โ criminal liability.
Sentencing included fine + imprisonment.
Principle:
Acid Control Rules violations can lead to imprisonment; helps in preventive control.
๐น III. SUMMARY TABLE
| Case | Court | Sections Invoked | Sentence / Directive | Key Principle |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Laxmi v. UOI (2014) | SC | 326A, 326B, Acid Rules | Guidelines for sale, punishment, compensation | Preventive, punitive, restorative justice |
| State of Punjab v. Balwinder Singh (2016) | Punjab & Haryana HC | 326A | Life imprisonment + โน5 lakh fine | Severity & deterrence |
| State v. Sajjan Singh (2017) | Rajasthan HC | 326B | 6 years + โน2 lakh | Attempt punishable strictly |
| Ramesh v. TN (2018) | TN HC | 326A | Life imprisonment + rehabilitation | Motive aggravates sentence |
| Sunita v. UP (2019) | Allahabad HC | 326A | Life imprisonment + compensation | Public attacks worsen sentence |
| Mahesh v. Karnataka (2020) | Karnataka HC | Acid Control Rules | Imprisonment + fine | Seller liability under Acid Control |
๐น IV. CONCLUSION
Acid attacks are heinous crimes with life-long consequences; punishment is strict.
Section 326A & 326B IPC provide minimum and maximum imprisonment (10 yearsโlife, 5โ7 years respectively).
High Court directives ensure:
Prompt medical care and rehabilitation.
Victim compensation.
Regulation of acid sale to prevent attacks.
Sentencing is influenced by:
Extent of injuries.
Motive of the attack.
Public vs. private nature of the crime.
Attempt vs. completed attack.
Courts consistently emphasize deterrence, victim rehabilitation, and societal prevention.
RELATED Blog
0 comments