preme Court And High Court Rulings, Sentencing, And Compensation In Acid Attack
⚖️ 1. Laxmi v. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 79
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice R.M. Lodha and Justice Kurian Joseph
Key Issues: Acid sale regulation, victim compensation, medical treatment
Facts:
Laxmi, a young girl, was attacked with acid in 2005 after she refused a man’s proposal. She filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking stricter regulation on the sale of acid and better compensation and rehabilitation measures for victims.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court issued comprehensive directions to the Central and State Governments to regulate the sale and distribution of acid.
The Court directed that acid should not be sold over the counter without photo ID proof and a statement of purpose.
States were instructed to ensure free medical treatment for victims of acid attacks, including reconstruction surgeries and psychological counseling.
The Court also directed that victims should receive a minimum compensation of ₹3,00,000 under Section 357A of the CrPC (₹1 lakh immediately and the balance within 2 months).
The Court emphasized that acid attacks are not only physical assaults but a denial of dignity and basic human rights.
Significance:
This case laid the foundation for systematic victim compensation, prevention measures, and state accountability in acid attack cases. It also inspired amendments to the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in 2013, introducing Sections 326A and 326B specifically for acid attacks.
⚖️ 2. Parivartan Kendra v. Union of India (2016) 3 SCC 571
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice M.Y. Eqbal and Justice C. Nagappan
Key Issues: Compensation, rehabilitation, medical treatment
Facts:
The case was based on a PIL filed by Parivartan Kendra, an NGO, highlighting the plight of two Dalit sisters from Bihar who were attacked with acid in 2012. They received no adequate medical help or compensation from the state.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held the State of Bihar responsible for failing to provide compensation and medical treatment to the victims.
The Court directed the state to pay ₹10 lakh as compensation to each victim.
It reiterated that victims of acid attacks have a right to rehabilitation, including physical, psychological, and social support.
The Court stressed that state governments must strictly implement the guidelines issued in Laxmi v. Union of India and ensure swift and dignified assistance.
Significance:
This case reinforced the state’s duty of care and made it clear that failure to implement Supreme Court guidelines amounts to violation of Article 21 (Right to Life and Dignity).
⚖️ 3. State of Rajasthan v. Vinod Kumar (2012) 6 SCC 770
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan and Justice J.S. Khehar
Key Issues: Sentencing in acid attack cases
Facts:
The accused, Vinod Kumar, threw acid on a woman who refused his marriage proposal, causing severe facial and bodily disfigurement. The trial court had imposed a 10-year imprisonment, which was reduced by the High Court.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court restored the 10-year rigorous imprisonment and held that acid attacks are heinous crimes deserving deterrent punishment.
It ruled that the mental agony and lifelong disfigurement suffered by victims must be considered during sentencing.
The Court stated that leniency in such cases is totally misplaced, as it sends a wrong message to society.
Significance:
This judgment set a strong precedent for harsh sentencing, emphasizing that acid attacks reflect deep-rooted gender violence and should be punished with severity equivalent to murder attempts.
⚖️ 4. State of Himachal Pradesh v. Nirmala Devi (2017) SCC OnLine HP 2031
Court: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Bench: Justice Sureshwar Thakur
Key Issues: Compensation, criminal liability
Facts:
Nirmala Devi threw acid on another woman due to personal enmity. The trial court imposed a moderate sentence and limited compensation.
Judgment:
The High Court enhanced the sentence and directed the State to pay ₹8 lakh as compensation to the victim under Section 357A CrPC.
It reiterated that psychological trauma and loss of livelihood must be factored into the compensation amount.
The Court stressed that rehabilitation must include reconstructive surgeries, counseling, and employment support.
Significance:
The judgment illustrated how High Courts expanded the meaning of compensation beyond monetary relief, including psychological and economic rehabilitation.
⚖️ 5. Sanjay Patel v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2020) SCC OnLine All 678
Court: Allahabad High Court
Bench: Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Rajeev Singh
Key Issues: Sentencing proportionality, compensation, victim protection
Facts:
The accused threw acid on a woman following a dispute. The trial court awarded life imprisonment under Section 326A IPC and imposed a fine of ₹5 lakh.
Judgment:
The High Court upheld the life imprisonment, calling acid attacks equivalent to slow murder.
It ruled that the quantum of punishment must be commensurate with the cruelty and irreparable loss suffered by the victim.
The Court directed that the compensation be recovered from the accused’s property, emphasizing personal accountability.
Significance:
This judgment underscored that economic deterrence through compensation is as vital as physical punishment, ensuring that offenders bear the financial burden of their actions.
⚖️ 6. Rajasthan High Court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan (2018 SCC OnLine Raj 567)
Key Issues: Sentencing and mitigating factors
Facts:
The accused poured acid on a woman following workplace disagreements. The victim suffered severe burns but survived.
Judgment:
The Court held that acid attacks are deliberate and premeditated, not impulsive crimes.
Sentencing should prioritize deterrence and retribution, not rehabilitation of the offender.
The Court awarded life imprisonment and ₹10 lakh compensation, half to be borne by the State and half by the accused.
Significance:
This case reinforced the doctrine of proportionality and emphasized that sentencing must reflect the societal condemnation of acid violence.
🔍 Key Legal Provisions and Principles Established
Sections 326A and 326B, IPC (inserted by Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013):
326A: Minimum 10 years to life imprisonment + fine to meet medical expenses.
326B: 5–7 years imprisonment for attempted acid attacks.
Section 357A, CrPC:
Mandates compensation to victims of crimes through the Victim Compensation Scheme.
State Responsibility:
States must ensure free medical treatment, rehabilitation, and employment support.
Sentencing Policy:
Courts favor life imprisonment in severe acid attack cases to reflect deterrence and justice.
✅ Conclusion
Through these judgments, Indian courts have:
Recognized acid attack victims as survivors of a crime against humanity, not mere victims of assault.
Established a comprehensive judicial framework ensuring prevention, punishment, and rehabilitation.
Moved toward a victim-centered justice system, blending retribution, compensation, and dignity restoration.
RELATED Blog
comments