Criminal Liability For Acid Attacks In Homes, Workplaces, And Public Areas
1. Introduction: Acid Attacks and Criminal Liability
Acid attacks are among the most heinous crimes causing grievous bodily harm, disfigurement, psychological trauma, and often death. These attacks are not only violent but also premeditated and gender-biased, often targeting women.
Under Indian criminal law, acid attacks are primarily governed by the Indian Penal Code (IPC) through the following provisions:
Section 326A IPC: Punishes causing grievous hurt by use of acid, etc., with imprisonment not less than 10 years, which may extend to life, and fine.
Section 326B IPC: Punishes attempt to throw or administer acid, with imprisonment not less than 5 years, which may extend to 7 years, and fine.
Section 307 IPC: Attempt to murder — applied when intention to kill is proven.
Section 302 IPC: Murder — if the victim dies due to the injuries caused by the acid attack.
Section 354 IPC: Outraging the modesty of a woman, if the attack is motivated by sexual or gender-based reasons.
2. Liability in Different Contexts
(a) Acid Attacks in Homes
When such attacks occur within the domestic sphere — by husbands, partners, or relatives — the offender may face additional charges under Section 498A IPC (cruelty by husband or relatives of husband), along with Section 326A IPC. The motive is often domestic disputes, dowry issues, or rejection.
(b) Acid Attacks in Workplaces
If the attack occurs at a workplace (e.g., by colleagues, superiors, or employees), it may also involve workplace harassment, and employers can face vicarious liability for negligence in ensuring safety if they failed to act on prior complaints.
(c) Acid Attacks in Public Areas
In public places, such acts involve public order concerns, and the offender faces direct criminal liability. The state machinery may also be held accountable for failing to regulate acid sales or maintain law and order.
3. Important Case Laws
Here are six landmark cases that shaped the legal framework and judicial understanding of acid attacks in India:
Case 1: Laxmi v. Union of India (2014) 4 SCC 427
Facts:
Laxmi, a young woman, was attacked with acid in 2005 by a man whose marriage proposal she had rejected. Her public interest litigation (PIL) sought stricter punishment for acid attackers and regulation of acid sales.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court issued historic directions, including:
Regulation of acid sales across India.
Free medical treatment and compensation for victims under Section 357C CrPC.
Mandatory registration of all acid sale vendors.
Inclusion of Sections 326A and 326B IPC by legislative amendment (2013).
Significance:
This case transformed how India viewed acid attacks — from a private criminal act to a public policy issue, leading to major legislative reforms.
Case 2: State of Maharashtra v. Ankur Panwar (Preeti Rathi Case) (2016)
Facts:
Preeti Rathi, a young woman, was attacked with acid by her neighbor, Ankur Panwar, at Mumbai’s Bandra railway station after she rejected his advances. She later died from the injuries.
Judgment:
The Bombay Sessions Court sentenced the accused to death penalty under Sections 302 and 326A IPC, holding the crime “brutal and premeditated.”
Significance:
This was the first case where the death penalty was awarded for an acid attack leading to death, emphasizing the gravity of such crimes in public spaces.
Case 3: Parivartan Kendra v. Union of India (2015) 13 SCC 137
Facts:
A PIL filed to highlight the plight of acid attack survivors from poor and marginalized backgrounds. Many victims had not received compensation or medical aid.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court directed:
States must identify acid attack victims and provide at least ₹3 lakh compensation.
Government hospitals must provide free medical treatment, including reconstructive surgery.
Regular monitoring of implementation of Laxmi’s case directions.
Significance:
The Court reaffirmed that acid attack survivors are entitled to rehabilitation, not charity — bringing focus to victim-centric justice.
Case 4: State v. Vinod (Delhi District Court, 2015)
Facts:
The accused threw acid on his former girlfriend after she refused to reconcile their relationship, leading to permanent facial disfigurement.
Judgment:
He was convicted under Section 326A IPC and sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment with ₹3 lakh compensation to the victim.
Significance:
This case illustrated how personal vengeance and rejection lead to acid attacks in intimate relationships, showing the law’s deterrent use in private/domestic contexts.
Case 5: Ravindra v. State of Haryana (2015 SCC OnLine P&H 12873)
Facts:
The accused threw acid on a woman working at a factory after she refused his marriage proposal. The incident occurred inside the workplace.
Judgment:
The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld conviction under Sections 326A and 354 IPC, holding that the attack was not only an assault but also an act of sexual harassment and gender-based violence.
Significance:
The Court emphasized employer responsibility to ensure workplace safety and to address such threats proactively.
Case 6: Moni v. State of Tamil Nadu (2018)
Facts:
The accused poured acid on his wife over a domestic dispute, causing her death.
Judgment:
The Madras High Court upheld conviction under Section 302 IPC (murder) and not just Section 326A, since the acid attack was intentional and fatal.
Significance:
The case distinguished between grievous hurt (326A) and murder (302) based on intention and consequence, crucial in domestic violence contexts.
4. Legal Principles Evolved
From the above cases, several key legal principles have emerged:
Mens rea (intention) — essential to distinguish between Sections 326A and 302 IPC.
Strict liability for acid sellers — illegal sale without license can attract prosecution.
Victim compensation — mandatory under Section 357A CrPC and various court directions.
State accountability — failure to regulate acid sale or protect victims may invite constitutional scrutiny under Article 21 (Right to Life).
Gender-sensitive justice — courts recognize acid attacks as a form of gender-based violence and uphold victims’ dignity.
5. Conclusion
Acid attacks, whether in homes, workplaces, or public areas, are serious criminal offenses that attract severe punishment under Indian law. Judicial decisions such as Laxmi v. Union of India, Preeti Rathi case, and Parivartan Kendra case have not only established strong penal consequences but also strengthened preventive measures, rehabilitation schemes, and victim rights.
Thus, Indian jurisprudence treats acid attacks as both a crime against the individual and against society, demanding the strictest liability and lifelong rehabilitation support for survivors.
RELATED Blog
comments