Criminal Liability For Acid Attacks In Homes, Workplaces, And Public Spaces
🔹 1. Overview of Criminal Liability for Acid Attacks
Acid attacks are among the most heinous forms of violence, primarily targeting women, and are treated as grievous offences under criminal law. The liability arises under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), as well as under special laws and judicial precedents.
Relevant Legal Provisions
Section 326A IPC – Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid, etc.
Punishment: Imprisonment not less than 10 years, which may extend to life imprisonment, and fine (to meet medical expenses of the victim).
Section 326B IPC – Voluntarily throwing or attempting to throw acid.
Punishment: Imprisonment not less than 5 years, which may extend to 7 years, and fine.
Section 307 IPC – Attempt to murder (used when intention to kill is clear).
Section 34 / 120B IPC – Common intention / criminal conspiracy, used when multiple persons are involved (such as workplace retaliation or planned assaults).
Compensation under CrPC Section 357A – State legal services are directed to provide rehabilitation and financial aid to survivors.
🔹 2. Acid Attacks in Different Contexts
(a) In Homes (Domestic or Intimate Violence)
These attacks often occur due to rejection of marriage proposals, dowry disputes, or domestic conflicts. The assailant is often a close relative or spouse.
(b) In Workplaces
Workplace-related acid attacks are often motivated by revenge, workplace harassment, or humiliation. Employers can also face liability under negligence or vicarious liability if preventive safety measures were ignored.
(c) In Public Spaces
Such attacks typically occur in streets or public venues, often linked to stalking or revenge crimes. Public liability can also extend to state authorities for lack of protection or enforcement.
🔹 3. Key Case Laws (Explained in Detail)
Case 1: Laxmi v. Union of India, (2014) 4 SCC 427
Facts:
Laxmi, a young girl, was attacked with acid by a man whose marriage proposal she rejected. The attack disfigured her face permanently. She filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court seeking regulation on the sale of acid and stronger punishment for offenders.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court recognized acid attacks as a distinct category of grievous offence and directed:
Regulation of acid sale — acids cannot be sold without photo ID proof and purpose declaration.
Compensation: Minimum ₹3 lakh to each victim.
Free medical treatment for victims in all hospitals, public or private.
Significance:
This case led to the insertion of Sections 326A and 326B IPC (via Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013). It also established state accountability for rehabilitation and medical treatment of victims.
Case 2: State of Uttar Pradesh v. Naushad, (2013) 16 SCC 651
Facts:
The accused, Naushad, threw acid on a woman after she refused to marry him. The victim suffered severe facial and bodily burns. The trial court convicted him under Sections 326 and 307 IPC.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and emphasized the heinous nature of acid attacks, calling them "a crime against humanity." The Court stated that acid attacks cause not only physical injury but also lifelong psychological trauma.
Significance:
The case reinforced that such offences must be punished with deterrent sentences and cannot be treated with leniency. It also contributed to the Court’s emphasis on viewing acid attacks through the lens of gender-based violence.
Case 3: Parivartan Kendra v. Union of India, (2016) 3 SCC 571
Facts:
A PIL was filed by the NGO Parivartan Kendra, highlighting the plight of two Dalit sisters who were attacked with acid due to caste discrimination and lack of proper compensation and medical treatment by the Bihar government.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court directed all states and Union Territories to strictly implement the Laxmi guidelines, including:
Free treatment and reconstructive surgery.
Compensation of ₹3 lakh or more.
Social integration and vocational training for victims.
Significance:
This case expanded the scope of state responsibility from punishment to rehabilitation, social justice, and reintegration of acid attack survivors.
Case 4: State of Haryana v. Sanjay, (2015) 2 SCC 595
Facts:
The accused, Sanjay, threw acid on a woman colleague in a workplace-related dispute. The victim suffered serious facial injuries and permanent blindness in one eye.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Section 326A IPC, emphasizing that acid attacks in workplaces are not only personal crimes but also a violation of workplace safety and dignity.
Significance:
The Court reiterated the principle that no provocation or rejection can justify acid violence, and employers must ensure protective environments for women. The decision also recognized the right to a safe workplace under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Case 5: Sonu @ Subhash Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2020 SCC OnLine All 1223
Facts:
The accused threw acid on a woman in a public marketplace after she refused to continue a relationship with him. The victim suffered disfigurement and partial blindness.
Judgment:
The Allahabad High Court sentenced the accused to life imprisonment, observing that the offence was premeditated and intended to destroy the victim’s identity and dignity.
Significance:
The Court emphasized that acid attacks in public spaces are acts of terror, undermining public confidence and women’s freedom of movement. It reaffirmed the deterrent intent of Sections 326A and 326B IPC.
🔹 4. Conclusion
Acid attacks, whether in homes, workplaces, or public spaces, represent an intersection of criminal violence, gender oppression, and violation of human rights. Indian jurisprudence has evolved to treat them with utmost severity:
Criminal liability rests primarily on the perpetrator (under Sections 326A/B, 307, etc.).
Vicarious or state liability arises in cases of negligence in regulation, sale, or treatment.
Judicial precedents (like Laxmi, Parivartan Kendra, Sanjay) have expanded the law from punishment to prevention, compensation, and rehabilitation.
RELATED Blog
comments