Prosecution Of Acid Attack Survivors’ Cases And Rehabilitation Challenges

16 Oct 2025 --
0 Comments

1. Legal Framework in Nepal

Acid attacks in Nepal are primarily addressed under:

Muluki Criminal Code, 2017 (Nepal):

Section 177–180: Covers grievous hurt caused intentionally; acid attacks fall under “intentional grievous bodily harm.”

Section 178: Punishes attacks that cause permanent disfigurement or disability.

Section 179: Provides for harsher punishment if the victim dies due to the attack.

Acid and Other Harmful Chemicals (Regulation) Act, 2020:

Controls sale, storage, and transport of acid.

Mandates fines and imprisonment for illegal possession or sale.

Ensures compensation and medical treatment for survivors.

Victim Compensation and Rehabilitation:

Courts can order offenders or the government to cover medical expenses, psychological counseling, and economic support.

Hospitals are mandated to provide immediate care to survivors.

2. Case Analyses

Case 1: State vs. Sangita Magar (Kathmandu, 2015)

Facts: A 16-year-old student was attacked with acid by a person holding a personal grudge. Her friend was also injured.

Evidence: Testimony of victim, witnesses, and medical reports showing chemical burns.

Court Findings: The attack was intentional and premeditated. The perpetrator abused the trust of a minor.

Outcome: Convicted under Sections 178 and 180 of the Criminal Code. Sentenced to 10 years imprisonment and ordered to pay medical compensation.

Rehabilitation Challenges: Victim required multiple reconstructive surgeries, faced social stigma, and suffered psychological trauma. Demonstrated the gap between legal redress and full rehabilitation.

Case 2: State vs. Bindabasini Kansakar (Kathmandu, 2016)

Facts: Victim was attacked with acid while traveling home at night. Attackers motivated by revenge.

Evidence: Victim testimony, chemical analysis proving acid as cause of injuries, witnesses.

Court Findings: The attack caused permanent facial disfigurement. Perpetrators intentionally inflicted grievous harm.

Outcome: Conviction under Sections 178–180. Ordered to pay compensation equivalent to full medical and reconstructive costs.

Rehabilitation Challenges: Cost of surgeries far exceeded compensation. Survivor suffered long-term unemployment and social isolation. Highlighted the need for comprehensive rehabilitation schemes.

Case 3: State vs. Rihanna Dhapali (Biratnagar, 2017)

Facts: Dowry-related dispute led to acid being thrown on a 7-month pregnant woman by her husband and mother-in-law. The unborn child was lost.

Evidence: Testimony, hospital reports, police investigation, and witness statements.

Court Findings: Attack was premeditated and linked to domestic power dynamics.

Outcome: Convicted under Sections 178, 179. Sentenced to 12 years imprisonment and directed to pay compensation.

Rehabilitation Challenges: Victim required long-term psychological support and reconstructive surgeries. Legal measures addressed punishment but rehabilitation support was inadequate.

Case 4: State vs. Arati Shah (Janakpurdham, 2020)

Facts: Acid attack by a neighbor motivated by personal dispute. Victim suffered severe burns on face and hands.

Evidence: Medical reports, CCTV footage, police records.

Court Findings: Attack met criteria for permanent disfigurement; perpetrator acted with intent to harm.

Outcome: Sentenced under 2020 Acid Act: 20 years imprisonment and Rs 1 million fine. Court directed state to cover part of medical treatment.

Rehabilitation Challenges: Survivor required multiple surgeries. Delays in receiving state compensation slowed rehabilitation. Showed that even after stricter laws, enforcement remains inconsistent.

Case 5: State vs. Manoj KC (Chitwan, 2018)

Facts: Acid thrown at a school teacher by a former student for refusing romantic advances. Victim sustained burns to eyes and arms.

Evidence: Testimonies, chemical analysis, prior threats documented in letters.

Court Findings: Attack was intentional, targeted, and caused permanent injuries.

Outcome: Conviction with 15 years imprisonment and court-ordered compensation for medical and economic losses.

Rehabilitation Challenges: Victim lost vision in one eye; required prosthetic devices and counseling. Highlighted gaps in occupational rehabilitation.

Case 6: State vs. Sabita Thapa (Lalitpur, 2019)

Facts: Acid attack motivated by workplace dispute; victim sustained burns on face and neck.

Evidence: Witness testimony, CCTV evidence, and chemical testing.

Court Findings: Attack was deliberate and caused significant physical and psychological harm.

Outcome: 12 years imprisonment and compensation order.

Rehabilitation Challenges: Victim faced social ostracism and difficulty returning to previous workplace. Showed long-term social reintegration is a major challenge.

Case 7: State vs. Ramesh Adhikari (Kathmandu, 2021)

Facts: Domestic conflict led to acid thrown at spouse, causing severe burns and scarring.

Evidence: Victim testimony, police investigation, and hospital records.

Court Findings: Attack constituted both domestic violence and criminal grievous harm.

Outcome: Convicted under Sections 178–180; 14 years imprisonment; ordered medical compensation.

Rehabilitation Challenges: Survivor required long-term counseling and economic support to regain independence.

3. Observations and Key Challenges

Prosecution Challenges:

Evidence collection is critical: chemical analysis, witness statements, CCTV footage, and medical reports.

Establishing intent and premeditation often complicates cases.

Rehabilitation Challenges:

Survivors face physical, psychological, and social challenges.

Reconstruction surgeries are expensive and prolonged.

Social stigma and employment difficulties persist even after legal redress.

Compensation payments are often delayed or insufficient.

Legal Evolution:

Earlier, acid attacks were prosecuted under general grievous hurt laws.

The 2020 Acid Act strengthened penalties and mandated victim support.

Courts increasingly recognize the need for both punitive and rehabilitative justice.

4. Summary Table of Cases

Case	Year / Location	Attack Context	Sentence	Rehabilitation Challenges
Sangita Magar	2015, Kathmandu	Personal grudge	10 yrs + compensation	Multiple surgeries, social stigma
Bindabasini Kansakar	2016, Kathmandu	Random attack	12 yrs + compensation	High treatment costs, unemployment
Rihanna Dhapali	2017, Biratnagar	Dowry-related	12 yrs + compensation	Loss of pregnancy, long-term counseling
Arati Shah	2020, Janakpurdham	Personal dispute	20 yrs + Rs 1M fine	Delays in state support, surgeries
Manoj KC	2018, Chitwan	Romantic dispute	15 yrs + compensation	Vision loss, occupational rehab
Sabita Thapa	2019, Lalitpur	Workplace dispute	12 yrs + compensation	Social ostracism, workplace reintegration
Ramesh Adhikari	2021, Kathmandu	Domestic conflict	14 yrs + compensation	Counseling, economic independence