No Lenience To Man Who Attacked Woman With Acid For Rejecting Proposal: Karnataka HC

BACKGROUND

• The accused/ appellant was interested in marrying the victim but was refused by her parents and to seek revenge for the rejection, he poured acid on the victim while she was walking on a public road.
• The acid attack on her caused grievous corrosive injuries and thus, disfigured her face and body and acid fell on a minor boy, who also sustained injures on his face and head.
• Based on the complaint lodged by the victim’s brother under Sections 326A, 326B, and 307 of IPC, the Sessions Judge framed the charges on the accused and held him guilty under Section 307 on the ground that the attack could have caused death and under Section 326A for the act of throwing acid.
• The Sessions Judge ordered the accused to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rupees Ten lakhs under Section 326A and imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.50,000 under Section 307.
• Unhappy with the order, the accused filed a criminal appeal before the HC under Section 374(2) of CrPC praying to set aside the order.

ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT

• The counsel for the appellant contended that the judgment of the Sessions court was erroneous as the case was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt because the statement of the witness showed that the appellant was wearing a helmet during the attack and it cannot be proved that he was the attacker.
• He also contended that there was a delay in lodging the FIR and the delayed time was used by the victim to frame the accused.
• He further contended that the evidence of the injured and eyewitnesses were contrary and hence the judgment was passed only based on assumptions and presumptions.

ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL FOR THE STATE

• The counsel justified the impugned order and contended that while the victim was coming back from school, the accused asked her to stop near the junction and threw acid on her which shows that the accused was the attacker.
• He further contended that the witness who sold the acid to the accused has disposed under oath that the accused requested acid from him and the same was delivered to him in a bottle.
• He stated that the Sessions judge considered both oral and documentary evidence and rightly came to the conclusion that the accused was involved in throwing acid on the face of the victim and other parts of her body.

ORDER

• The Court mentioned that the acid attack is a crime against humanity and it violated one of the most important Fundamental Rights mentioned under Article 21 of the Constitution.
• The Court observed that merely on the ground that the victim refused to marry the accused as her parents did not give consent, the accused cannot treat the victim as her slave and infringe her right to life and personal liberty.
• The Court set aside the imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.50,000 under Section 307 and upheld the order of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rupees Ten lakhs under Section 326A and remarked that imposition of appropriate punishment is the manner in which the Court gives justice to the victims.
• The Court also stated that throwing acid on young women and a minor boy is more dangerous than murder as they have to go through physical and mental pain throughout life and there can be no leniency in punishing the accused.
• In its final order, the Court held that the accused is not entitled to the benefit under Section 428 of the CrPC.

What do you think of this case?