Criminal Liability In Acid Throwing Cases Under Acid Control Act
πΉ 1. Legislative Background
Before 2002, acid violence cases were prosecuted under the Penal Code, 1860 (e.g., under sections dealing with grievous hurt or attempted murder). However, due to the severity and rise of acid attacks, Bangladesh enacted two separate laws:
The Acid Control Act, 2002 β regulates import, production, transportation, storage, sale, and use of acid.
The Acid Crime Prevention Act, 2002 β prescribes criminal liability and punishment for perpetrators of acid attacks.
These laws are designed to ensure stricter punishment, faster trial, and regulate acid distribution to prevent misuse.
πΉ 2. Criminal Liability under the Acid Crime Prevention Act, 2002
Key Provisions:
Section 4: Death penalty or life imprisonment and fine if death results from acid throwing.
Section 5: If the victim loses vision, hearing, or any organ β imprisonment up to 14 years to life.
Section 6: If victim is disfigured or injured β imprisonment up to 7β14 years.
Section 7: Attempt to commit acid crime β imprisonment up to 7 years.
Section 9: Instigation, aiding, or abetting an acid crime carries the same punishment as the principal offender.
Section 10β12: Provide for speedy trial in special tribunals, within 90 days.
Thus, the Act establishes strict and deterrent liabilityβeven attempt or abetment can lead to severe imprisonment.
πΉ 3. Case Law Analysis
Here are five leading cases decided under the Acid Crime Prevention Act, 2002 that illustrate how courts in Bangladesh interpret and apply the law:
Case 1: State vs. Md. Zohurul Islam (2005) 57 DLR (HCD) 62
Facts:
The accused threw acid on his estranged wife out of suspicion and jealousy, causing severe facial disfigurement and blindness in one eye.
Issue:
Whether the elements of acid throwing and intention to cause grievous harm were proven.
Decision:
The High Court upheld the conviction under Section 5 of the Acid Crime Prevention Act, 2002, imposing life imprisonment.
Legal Principle:
Even if death does not occur, loss of organ function or permanent disfigurement qualifies for life imprisonment.
The court emphasized that mens rea (intention) is inferred from the act of throwing acid itself.
Case 2: State vs. Abul Kalam (2004) 56 DLR (HCD) 25
Facts:
The accused, after being rejected in love, threw acid on a girl causing severe burns and disfigurement of the face and upper body.
Issue:
Was the evidence sufficient to convict when the accused denied the allegation?
Decision:
The court found the circumstantial evidence, including witness testimony and medical reports, conclusive. The accused was sentenced to death under Section 4, since the victim died from acid burns.
Legal Principle:
The intention to kill can be presumed from the severity and targeting of the attack (face and chest).
Acid attacks are treated as heinous crimes against humanity, justifying capital punishment.
Case 3: State vs. Md. Joynal Abedin (2006) 58 DLR (HCD) 297
Facts:
A man, suspecting his wife of infidelity, threw acid on her while she was asleep. The woman survived but suffered loss of eyesight and severe facial burns.
Issue:
Whether the punishment should be mitigated since the victim survived.
Decision:
No β the High Court confirmed life imprisonment under Section 5.
Legal Principle:
The Actβs purpose is deterrence β the punishment does not depend solely on the victimβs survival but on the extent of harm and intent.
Domestic relationship or provocation cannot mitigate liability.
Case 4: State vs. Md. Babul (2010) 62 DLR (HCD) 456
Facts:
Two men attacked a rival businessman with acid, causing permanent disability.
Issue:
Whether both the person who threw the acid and the person who provided it are equally liable.
Decision:
Both were convicted β one for direct commission, the other for abetment under Section 9.
Legal Principle:
Abetment or supply of acid is punishable equally as throwing acid.
The court emphasized that control of acid is a preventive measure, and negligence in its use also attracts liability.
Case 5: State vs. Md. Jashim Uddin (2014) 66 DLR (HCD) 512
Facts:
The accused attempted to throw acid on a young girl but was stopped before serious injury occurred.
Issue:
Can he be convicted when the attempt was incomplete?
Decision:
Yes. He was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment under Section 7 (attempt).
Legal Principle:
Attempt alone is a punishable offense under the Act, regardless of injury.
The Act criminalizes all stages β preparation, attempt, commission β to create deterrence.
πΉ 4. Nature of Criminal Liability
Under the Acid Crime Prevention Act, liability is strict and aggravated due to:
Mens rea (intention or knowledge) to cause death, disfigurement, or pain.
Actus reus β the act of throwing or attempting to throw acid.
Causation β link between act and harm caused.
Aggravating factors β premeditation, motive (revenge, jealousy), cruelty.
No defenses of provocation or intoxication are allowed for mitigation.
The law also imposes equal liability for aiding, abetting, or supplying acid.
πΉ 5. Judicial Trend
Bangladeshi courts have consistently taken a zero-tolerance approach:
Severe punishments including death and life imprisonment.
Speedy trials through special tribunals.
Emphasis on protecting women and children and social deterrence.
πΉ 6. Conclusion
The Acid Control Act, 2002 (regulatory) and the Acid Crime Prevention Act, 2002 (punitive) together form a comprehensive legal framework. Courts treat acid attacks as heinous crimes against human dignity, with liability extending beyond direct perpetrators to suppliers and abettors.
The discussed cases demonstrate that criminal liability under these Acts is broad, severe, and deterrent, aiming not only to punish offenders but to eradicate acid violence from society.
RELATED Blog
0 comments