Criminal Liability For Acid Violence In Rural Areas

17 Oct 2025 --
0 Comments

🧾 1. Introduction: Acid Violence in Nepal

Acid attacks are a form of violent crime where an assailant intentionally throws or administers acid (or similar corrosive chemicals) to cause disfigurement, pain, or death.
They are often motivated by revenge, rejection, domestic disputes, property issues, or jealousy, and they disproportionately affect women and girls, especially in rural areas where law enforcement and regulation of acid sales are weak.

⚖️ 2. Legal Framework for Acid Violence

A. Constitutional Protection

Article 18 – Right to equality (no discrimination on gender, caste, or status).

Article 20 – Right to life and personal dignity.

Article 22 – Rights of women (protection from violence and exploitation).

B. Muluki Criminal Code, 2017 (Sections 193–195)

Section 193: Punishment for acid attack —

Up to 8 years imprisonment if face disfigured.

3–5 years imprisonment if other body parts disfigured.

Fines between Rs. 50,000 and Rs. 500,000.

Compensation must go directly to the victim.

C. 2020 Amendment (Acid and Other Hazardous Substances Control Ordinance)

Strengthened penalties:

Up to 20 years imprisonment for serious injuries.

Life imprisonment if victim dies.

Introduced strict control on sale and purchase of acid, especially relevant in rural areas where such sales are common.

⚖️ 3. Major Judicial Precedents

Let’s examine six landmark cases that shaped the law and criminal liability for acid violence, including those that arose from rural or semi-rural contexts.

Case 1: State vs. Jiwan BK (2015, Kathmandu District Court & Supreme Court Appeal)

Facts:
Two schoolgirls, Sangita Magar and Sima Basnet, were attacked with acid while studying in an exam hall. The attacker, Jiwan BK, reportedly acted out of revenge for perceived rejection.

Legal Issue:
Can acid attacks be treated as a form of attempted murder or require a specific statute?

Judgment:

The District Court sentenced Jiwan BK to 10 years imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300,000.

Later, the Supreme Court of Nepal upheld the decision and directed the government to:

Provide free medical treatment for all acid and burn victims.

Regulate acid sales and licensing across Nepal.

Ensure victims receive compensation promptly.

Significance:
Though an urban case, this judgment became a national precedent. It influenced enforcement in rural areas, ensuring that acid crimes, whether in a city or a remote village, are treated as grievous criminal acts, not private disputes.

Case 2: State vs. Sanjiv Shah (2016, Dhanusha District Court – Janakpur High Court Appeal)

Facts:
In Dhanusha (a rural Terai district), a husband attacked his wife, Aarti Shah, with acid after a domestic dispute.
The incident caused severe facial disfigurement.

Legal Issue:
Can domestic acid attacks be treated as grievous assault rather than domestic violence?

Judgment:

The District Court sentenced the husband to 10½ years imprisonment and imposed Rs. 600,000 compensation.

The High Court in Janakpur upheld the conviction, ruling that marital or domestic relationship does not mitigate criminal liability.

Significance:

This was one of the first rural acid-attack convictions under the new Criminal Code.

The court clarified that personal or domestic disputes cannot reduce criminal responsibility.

It also affirmed that victims in rural areas are entitled to the same protections and compensation as urban victims.

Case 3: State vs. Mina Chaudhary (2017, Sunsari District Court)

Facts:
A 19-year-old woman from rural Sunsari was attacked by her brother-in-law for rejecting a marriage proposal.
The acid caused partial blindness.

Legal Issue:
Can motive (rejection or “honour”) aggravate the punishment for acid violence?

Judgment:

The District Court found the act to be premeditated and motivated by gender-based violence.

The perpetrator received 12 years imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500,000.

The court also ordered psychological counseling and free medical care for the victim.

Significance:

Recognized “rejection-based acid attacks” as aggravated crimes rooted in gender discrimination.

Brought mental health and rehabilitation into the sentencing framework for the first time.

Case 4: State vs. Ramhari Yadav (2018, Siraha District Court)

Facts:
A farmer in rural Siraha threw acid on his neighbor following a land dispute.
The attack caused permanent facial disfigurement.

Legal Issue:
Are acid attacks arising from property disputes treated differently from domestic or romantic motives?

Judgment:

The court held that motive does not change liability — the crime is defined by intent to injure or disfigure.

Sentenced Yadav to 8 years imprisonment and fine Rs. 300,000, all payable to the victim.

Significance:

Extended criminal liability beyond “domestic or relationship-based” motives to include revenge, land, and property conflicts.

Important for rural contexts, where such disputes are frequent.

Case 5: State vs. Suman Tamang (2019, Dhading District Court)

Facts:
In a rural village of Dhading, a young man attacked his ex-girlfriend with acid after she married someone else.
The attack severely damaged her face and neck.

Legal Issue:
Can “emotional rejection” be treated as an aggravating factor increasing punishment?

Judgment:

The court ruled that acid violence driven by rejection is an aggravated form of gender-based assault.

Suman Tamang was given 14 years imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 700,000, payable as victim compensation.

The court also directed local police to monitor acid sales in the district.

Significance:

One of the first rural judgments to invoke both criminal liability and preventive regulation.

Emphasized moral culpability and community responsibility.

Case 6: State vs. Parbati Malla (2020, Kaski High Court)

Facts:
In a rural part of Kaski district, a woman attacked another woman with acid after a family dispute regarding inheritance.

Legal Issue:
Can women be held to the same standard of criminal liability for acid attacks as men?

Judgment:

The High Court affirmed equal criminal liability regardless of gender.

Parbati Malla was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment and fine Rs. 400,000, with full compensation to the victim.

Significance:

Important for gender-neutral application of the law.

Reinforced that the offender’s gender is irrelevant — intent and harm define the crime.

🧩 4. Key Judicial Principles

Principle	Cases Supporting	Explanation
Acid attacks are serious felonies, not private disputes	Magar (2015), Shah (2016)	Domestic or emotional context doesn’t reduce liability.
Gender-based motive aggravates punishment	Mina Chaudhary (2017), Suman Tamang (2019)	Attacks motivated by rejection or gender bias get higher sentences.
Motive does not excuse liability	Ramhari Yadav (2018)	Even property/revenge motives are equally punishable.
Equal punishment regardless of gender	Parbati Malla (2020)	Offender’s gender doesn’t alter punishment.
Mandatory compensation and victim care	All cases post-2015	Fine must be directed to the victim; free treatment mandatory.
Regulation and prevention duties of the State	Magar (2015), Suman Tamang (2019)	Courts can direct local bodies to regulate acid sales.

🏁 5. Conclusion

Nepalese criminal law treats acid violence as a heinous, premeditated crime with severe punishments.
Through these precedents, the judiciary has established that:

No rural-urban distinction exists in liability — the same law applies across Nepal.

Motives like rejection, honour, or land dispute do not lessen punishment.

Compensation, medical care, and regulation are integral to justice.

Courts play an active role in preventing acid access and supporting victims.

These judgments mark Nepal’s progress toward zero tolerance for acid violence, particularly in rural communities where awareness, regulation, and access to justice are still developing.