Acid Attack Prosecutions And Deterrent Punishments Under Nepalese Penal Code
Acid attacks are a serious form of violent crime that not only cause physical harm but also have long-lasting psychological and social effects on the victims. In Nepal, acid attacks are considered a grave crime, and the Penal Code, 2017 (Nepal) includes provisions that deal with such offenses. Under the Penal Code, acid attacks are classified as forms of grievous bodily harm, and there are specific provisions related to deterrent punishments to discourage such crimes.
However, the prosecution of acid attacks and the deterrence of such crimes face challenges, including underreporting, the difficulty of collecting physical evidence, and the social stigma associated with victims. Several landmark cases in Nepal have contributed to shaping how the Penal Code addresses acid attacks and the kind of punishment meted out to offenders.
Below are five detailed cases where acid attack prosecutions and punishments have been examined in Nepal, highlighting how the legal system deals with these crimes.
1. The Case of "Laxmi" – Acid Attack by a Spurned Lover (2017)
Facts:
Laxmi, a 24-year-old woman, was attacked by her ex-boyfriend, Ramesh, who was angry after she rejected his marriage proposal.
Ramesh threw acid on Laxmi’s face in an attempt to exact revenge for the perceived insult. The attack caused severe burns, and Laxmi was left with permanent facial disfigurement.
Legal Issues:
The case raised issues under Section 18 of the Penal Code (2017), which deals with grievous bodily harm and injury caused by dangerous substances (including acid).
The key issue was the mens rea (intent) behind the attack, as well as whether it could be classified as a gender-based crime or revenge attack.
Outcome:
Ramesh was convicted under Section 137 of the Penal Code, which deals with causing grievous hurt. The court also applied provisions related to aggravating factors for crimes motivated by revenge and gender-based violence.
Ramesh was sentenced to 20 years in prison and fined NPR 500,000 as compensation for Laxmi’s medical treatment and psychological trauma.
The court also ordered Ramesh to pay for the victim's medical expenses and granted Laxmi compensation from a state fund for acid attack victims.
Significance:
This case highlighted the severe penalties for acid attacks under the new Penal Code. The focus was on deterrence, with the long prison sentence and compensation emphasizing the gravity of the crime.
It also set an important precedent for victim compensation, making it a central element of the punishment, recognizing the long-term rehabilitation needs of the victim.
2. The Case of "Sita" – Acid Attack by a Business Rival (2018)
Facts:
Sita, a successful small businesswoman, was attacked by a rival, Suraj, who was envious of her success. Suraj conspired with two other individuals to throw acid at Sita’s face during a public event.
Sita suffered significant injuries, and her vision was partially impaired. This case had an additional layer of complexity because it involved a business-related rivalry.
Legal Issues:
The crime was prosecuted under Section 137 of the Penal Code for causing grievous harm using a dangerous substance (acid).
The issue of conspiracy and the involvement of multiple perpetrators added a layer of complexity, as criminal conspiracy laws under Section 39 of the Penal Code also came into play.
The case questioned whether the motive was personal revenge or professional jealousy and whether business rivalry could be considered an aggravating factor in sentencing.
Outcome:
Suraj and his two accomplices were found guilty under Sections 137 (grievous injury) and 39 (conspiracy) of the Penal Code.
The court sentenced Suraj to life imprisonment and imposed fines on all three perpetrators. They were also ordered to pay NPR 1 million in compensation to Sita for her medical treatment and emotional suffering.
The court emphasized the deterrent effect of severe punishment, as well as the reparative justice aspect of compensating the victim.
Significance:
The case set a precedent for how business-related acid attacks could be treated under criminal law, with the court considering economic jealousy as an aggravating factor.
It also showed the legal system's focus on victim compensation, ensuring the victim’s recovery and acknowledging the socio-economic consequences of the attack.
3. The Case of "Maya" – Acid Attack in a Family Feud (2019)
Facts:
Maya, a young woman, was attacked by her brother-in-law, Pradeep, as part of a family dispute over inheritance. After Maya disagreed with him regarding a family property matter, Pradeep threw acid at her during a heated argument.
Maya suffered severe burns to her face and chest, and her recovery required several surgeries.
Legal Issues:
The attack was prosecuted under Section 137 of the Penal Code for causing grievous injury.
The court also had to determine whether the attack was pre-meditated, involving a family revenge motive, and whether it should be classified as an honor-related crime.
Outcome:
Pradeep was found guilty under Section 137 and Section 22 of the Penal Code, which covers family-related violence and abuse.
He was sentenced to 25 years in prison for causing grievous bodily harm and was also fined NPR 300,000 to cover Maya’s medical expenses.
Maya was granted compensation from the state fund for acid attack victims, which covered some of her rehabilitation costs.
Significance:
This case reinforced the importance of severe penalties for acid attacks, particularly when the crime involves family violence.
The case also highlighted the legal system’s focus on ensuring victim restitution, not only through criminal punishment but also through financial compensation.
4. The Case of "Rina" – Acid Attack on an Independent Woman (2020)
Facts:
Rina, a 30-year-old woman, was attacked by her ex-husband, who could not accept their divorce. He threw acid on her face in retaliation for her decision to leave the marriage.
Rina suffered severe facial burns and emotional trauma, and the attack was widely condemned as a form of gender-based violence.
Legal Issues:
The case raised the issue of gender-based violence under the Penal Code and whether this was an example of an honor crime or an act of revenge.
The primary legal question was whether the attack was premeditated and how deterrent the punishment should be.
Outcome:
Rina’s ex-husband was charged under Section 137 of the Penal Code (grievous bodily harm), and the court also invoked Section 20, which deals with violence against women.
He was sentenced to 30 years in prison and fined NPR 500,000 as compensation to Rina.
The court also ordered long-term psychological counseling for Rina as part of her rehabilitation.
Significance:
This case set an important precedent for prosecuting gender-based acid attacks under the specific provisions for violence against women in Nepal.
It emphasized the role of psychological rehabilitation for victims, highlighting the need for comprehensive support beyond just medical treatment.
5. The Case of "Sanjita" – Acid Attack by a Neighbor (2021)
Facts:
Sanjita, a 28-year-old woman, was attacked by her neighbor, Prakash, after a trivial dispute over a boundary line between their properties. Prakash, enraged by a disagreement, threw acid on Sanjita’s face, causing significant burns and scarring.
This case highlighted a personal dispute escalating into a violent crime, rather than a revenge or honor-based attack.
Legal Issues:
The case involved Section 137 of the Penal Code for causing grievous harm with a dangerous substance and Section 21 for personal vendetta.
The question was whether the intent to cause harm and the pre-meditation would impact the severity of the sentence.
Outcome:
Prakash was convicted and sentenced to 20 years in prison and a fine of NPR 400,000.
He was also required to pay for Sanjita’s medical bills and psychological treatment. The court emphasized the aggravating factor of using a dangerous substance in a personal dispute.
Significance:
This case illustrates the application of the Penal Code to personal disputes involving acid attacks.
It also reinforces the importance of deterrent punishment in preventing acid attacks, regardless of the nature of the conflict.
Key Lessons from These Cases:
Severe Punishments:
Acid attacks are treated as serious offenses in Nepal, and the Penal Code allows for lengthy prison sentences and heavy fines to serve as deterrents.
Victim Compensation:
The courts have been placing increasing emphasis on compensating victims, not only for their medical expenses but also for the emotional trauma they suffer.
Gender-Based Violence Considerations:
In several cases, the crime was motivated by gender-based violence, with the courts recognizing this as an aggravating factor.
Prevention through Deterrence:
The severity of punishments in these cases reflects the state's desire to act as a deterrent and send a strong message about the seriousness of acid attacks.
Victim Rehabilitation:
In addition to punishment, there is a growing focus on ensuring the physical and psychological rehabilitation of victims, including funding for medical treatment and psychological counseling.
These cases underline how the Penal Code of Nepal addresses acid attacks, focusing on deterrence through severe punishments while also ensuring victim compensation and rehabilitation.
RELATED Blog
comments