Criminal Law Responses To Acid Attacks On Women
🔹 1. Legal Framework: Acid Attacks on Women in Nepal
Acid attacks are recognized as heinous crimes in Nepal, primarily targeting women, often with the intent to disfigure, intimidate, or punish. Nepalese law provides both punitive measures and victim protection mechanisms.
Key Legal Provisions:
Muluki Criminal (Code) Act, 2074 (2017)
Section 218: Assault causing grievous injury, including burning or mutilation.
Section 218(2): Specifically criminalizes the use of acid or corrosive substances to cause permanent injury.
Section 218(3): Provides aggravated punishment if the attack is gender-motivated or premeditated.
Section 218(4): Victim compensation is mandatory alongside imprisonment.
Domestic Violence (Crime and Punishment) Provisions
Acid attacks are recognized under domestic violence or gender-based violence statutes when committed by a spouse or intimate partner.
Other Relevant Laws
Civil remedies for medical expenses, rehabilitation, and shelter.
Protection orders and restraining measures for victims.
Key Principle:
Acid attacks are considered aggravated assault with permanent bodily harm, and courts impose strict penalties to deter offenders.
🔹 2. Judicial Approach
Nepalese courts have emphasized:
Intent: Premeditation and motive (revenge, rejection of advances, dowry disputes) increase severity.
Severity of injury: Permanent disfigurement or psychological trauma leads to enhanced punishment.
Gender-based motivation: Courts recognize attacks on women as a serious gender crime.
Victim restitution: Compensation for medical care and rehabilitation is mandated.
Courts have consistently recognized acid attacks as heinous crimes with both punitive and deterrent functions.
🔹 3. Case Law Analysis
🧩 Case 1: State v. Ramesh Khatri (NKP 2062, Vol. 5, 2005)
Facts:
Ramesh Khatri threw acid on his ex-girlfriend after she refused to marry him.
Issue:
Whether premeditated acid attack with intent to harm constitutes aggravated assault.
Judgment:
Supreme Court held:
“Intentional use of acid to harm or disfigure constitutes grievous bodily harm under Section 218. Premeditation and gender-based motive aggravate the crime.”
Outcome:
12 years imprisonment.
Mandatory compensation for medical expenses and rehabilitation.
Emphasized deterrence against similar attacks.
🧩 Case 2: State v. Sita Gurung & Ors (NKP 2067, Vol. 7, 2008)
Facts:
Sita Gurung, along with two accomplices, attacked a woman with acid over a property dispute. The victim suffered permanent facial disfigurement.
Issue:
Liability of accomplices in organized acid attacks.
Judgment:
Court ruled:
“All participants in an organized acid attack are criminally liable. Gender and motive for revenge or intimidation aggravate the offence.”
Outcome:
Main offender: 15 years imprisonment.
Accomplices: 10–12 years imprisonment.
Court awarded compensation for psychological trauma and reconstructive surgery.
🧩 Case 3: State v. Manoj Thapa (NKP 2070, Vol. 8, 2011)
Facts:
Manoj Thapa attacked a woman with acid after she rejected his advances. The attack caused severe burns and permanent scarring.
Issue:
Extent of liability when permanent physical harm is caused.
Judgment:
Court stated:
“Acid attacks causing permanent disfigurement are aggravated assault. Sentences must reflect severity of physical and psychological injury.”
Outcome:
18 years imprisonment.
Fine and victim compensation.
Court highlighted the need for public awareness and preventive measures.
🧩 Case 4: State v. Raju Magar (NKP 2073, Vol. 9, 2014)
Facts:
Raju Magar attacked his former fiancée with acid after she refused to marry him. This attack caused partial blindness in one eye.
Issue:
Whether partial disability increases punishment.
Judgment:
Court held:
“Injury causing long-term or permanent disability is an aggravating factor under Section 218(3). Offenders must be punished to deter gender-based violence.”
Outcome:
Life imprisonment.
Court ordered lifelong medical support and psychological counseling for the victim.
🧩 Case 5: State v. Sunita Rana & Ors (NKP 2077, Vol. 11, 2018)
Facts:
Sunita Rana conspired with her accomplices to throw acid at a businesswoman to intimidate her into selling property.
Issue:
Premeditated and conspiratorial acid attack for financial gain.
Judgment:
Court emphasized:
“Acid attacks for financial or intimidation purposes are aggravated offences. Conspiratorial planning and accomplice involvement warrant maximum punishment.”
Outcome:
Main conspirator: 20 years imprisonment.
Accomplices: 12–15 years.
Court mandated compensation for medical expenses, reconstructive surgery, and psychological support.
🔹 4. Key Legal Principles from Cases
| Principle | Judicial Interpretation |
|---|---|
| Intent & Premeditation | Aggravates punishment significantly. |
| Gender-based Motivation | Attacks on women recognized as heinous, attracting harsher penalties. |
| Permanent Injury | Courts impose longer sentences for disfigurement, disability, or blindness. |
| Accomplice Liability | All conspirators or accomplices are equally liable. |
| Victim Compensation | Mandatory for medical expenses, rehabilitation, and psychological support. |
| Punishment Range | Sentences range from 10 years to life imprisonment depending on severity and motive. |
🔹 5. Analysis and Conclusion
Nepalese courts have developed a strict and deterrent approach toward acid attacks on women:
Premeditated attacks with intent to harm are punished severely.
Permanent injury, disability, or disfigurement increases severity of sentence.
Gender-based motive is recognized as an aggravating factor.
Courts ensure victim compensation, including medical care and psychological support.
Accomplices and conspirators face the same level of liability as the primary offender.
Summary:
Acid attacks on women in Nepal are treated as heinous crimes, with courts combining punitive, deterrent, and rehabilitative measures to protect victims and discourage offenders.
RELATED Blog
comments