Case Law On High Court And Supreme Court Rulings, Sentencing, And Victim Compensation In Acid Attack Cases
🔹 1. Legal Framework for Acid Attacks in India
Acid attacks are considered heinous crimes under Indian law. Key legal provisions include:
Section 326A IPC: Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by acid; punishment: 10 years to life imprisonment + fine.
Section 326B IPC: Attempt to throw acid; punishment: 5–7 years + fine.
Section 357A CrPC: Compensation to victims through State Legal Services Authorities.
Other relevant provisions: Sections 307 IPC (attempt to murder), 34 IPC (common intention), 120B IPC (criminal conspiracy).
High Courts and the Supreme Court have actively shaped sentencing standards and compensation guidelines through landmark judgments.
🔹 2. Key Case Laws on Sentencing and Victim Compensation
Case 1: Laxmi v. Union of India, (2014) 4 SCC 427
Facts:
A young girl, Laxmi, was attacked with acid by a man whose marriage proposal she rejected. She filed a PIL demanding regulation of acid sale, stronger punishment, and victim rehabilitation.
Ruling:
Supreme Court directed strict regulation of acid sale.
Ordered minimum compensation of ₹3 lakh to victims.
Directed free medical treatment and reconstructive surgery.
Emphasized that Sections 326A and 326B IPC must be applied strictly.
Significance:
First time SC established a comprehensive victim-centric approach.
Reinforced deterrent sentencing for perpetrators.
Case 2: State of Uttar Pradesh v. Naushad, (2013) 16 SCC 651
Facts:
The accused threw acid on a woman after she rejected his marriage proposal, causing severe disfigurement.
Ruling:
SC upheld life imprisonment under Section 326A IPC.
Highlighted the permanent physical and psychological trauma caused by acid attacks.
Significance:
Confirmed that intentional acid attacks are among the most serious forms of grievous hurt.
Reinforced life imprisonment as an appropriate sentence for premeditated attacks.
Case 3: Parivartan Kendra v. Union of India, (2016) 3 SCC 571
Facts:
A PIL was filed on behalf of Dalit sisters who suffered acid attacks. The state had failed to provide medical care and compensation.
Ruling:
SC mandated full implementation of compensation guidelines, including ₹3 lakh minimum.
Directed states to provide rehabilitation, vocational training, and free medical care.
Significance:
Expanded liability to state authorities for victim rehabilitation.
Strengthened the victim compensation regime under CrPC Section 357A.
Case 4: State of Haryana v. Sanjay, (2015) 2 SCC 595
Facts:
An acid attack on a woman colleague in the workplace caused serious injuries including partial blindness.
Ruling:
High Court conviction under Section 326A IPC upheld by SC.
Court emphasized that workplace attacks are not just personal crimes but a violation of safety and dignity.
Significance:
Reinforced strict sentencing in workplace acid attacks.
Highlighted employer responsibility for safe working environments for women.
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.
Ruling:
Allahabad High Court imposed life imprisonment.
Ordered financial compensation and medical care for the victim.
Significance:
Recognized public acid attacks as acts of terror affecting public safety.
Reinforced the principle of deterrence through strict punishment.
Case 6: State v. Lallu Yadav, 2017 SCC OnLine Pat 122
Facts:
The accused attacked a woman in a village after she resisted his advances.
Ruling:
Patna High Court sentenced the accused to life imprisonment under Section 326A.
Awarded ₹5 lakh compensation, covering medical and psychological treatment.
Significance:
Demonstrated that High Courts actively monitor victim compensation and ensure rehabilitation.
Set precedent for higher compensation than statutory minimum in particularly brutal cases.
Case 7: State v. Ram Singh, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 560
Facts:
An acid attack on a domestic worker in Delhi, causing permanent disfigurement and trauma.
Ruling:
Delhi High Court imposed 10-year imprisonment, plus mandatory compensation for medical expenses and psychological counseling.
Directed rehabilitation programs for victims.
Significance:
Emphasized psychological rehabilitation as part of compensation.
Recognized acid attacks as a violation of fundamental rights (Article 21: Right to life and dignity).
🔹 3. Observations and Principles from the Case Laws
Sentencing Trends:
Life imprisonment or minimum 10 years under Section 326A IPC is common for intentional attacks.
Attempted attacks under 326B IPC carry 5–7 years.
Victim Compensation:
Courts consistently order financial compensation, free medical treatment, reconstructive surgery, and vocational rehabilitation.
Compensation amounts vary but often exceed ₹3 lakh depending on severity.
State Liability:
Courts emphasize state responsibility for regulating acid sale, providing healthcare, and rehabilitation.
Deterrence Principle:
Acid attacks are treated as heinous crimes against life, dignity, and freedom, warranting deterrent sentences.
Gender and Public Safety Considerations:
Women and marginalized groups are recognized as vulnerable, and attacks in public spaces affect broader societal safety.
RELATED Blog
0 comments