- The Allahabad High Court has clarified that a charge under Section 326A IPC can be filed against the accused even if no grievous harm is done to an acid attack survivor, and that grievous harm to an acid attack survivor is not required in every case.
- It should be noted that this provision addresses the offence and punishment for knowingly causing grievous harm through the use of acid, etc.
- It states that anyone who causes permanent or partial damage or deformity to, or burns or maims or disfigures or disables, any part or parts of a person's body, or causes grievous harm by throwing acid on or administering acid to that person, shall be imprisoned for a term that may extend to life imprisonment.
- The Bench of Justice Om Prakash Tripathi was dealing with a revision plea filed by an accused charged under Sections 326-A, 504, and 506 IPC against a lower court order rejecting his discharge application under Section 227 Cr.P.C.
- It was his case that charges under Section 326A IPC were not made out against him because the acid attack survivor's body had no grievous injury.
- It was also argued that there was no permanent or partial damage or deformity to, or burns, maims, disfigures, or disables, any part or parts of the body, and thus no charge under Section 326A or 326B was made out.
- The state's counsel, on the other hand, argued that there is prima facie evidence to support the charge under Section 326A IPC against the revisionist, and that a co-accused had already been convicted under Sections 326A and 506 IPC.
- The Court noted at the outset that 9 "OR" have been used in this section, indicating that the charge under Section 326A IPC can be framed without causing grievous harm to the victim/survivor.
- The Court also considered the 18-year-old survivor's injuries, emphasising that she had suffered burn acid injury.
- Noting that the trial is still in its early stages, the Court emphasised that the court is not required to screen evidence or apply the standard of whether the prosecution will be able to prove the case against the accused at the trial.
- There is prima facie evidence material against the revisionist to frame a charge against the revisionist under Section 326A IPC as well, and the applicant is not liable to be discharged in such circumstances.
- As a result, the plea was dismissed because the criminal revision had no merit.
"Loved reading this piece by Twinkle Madaan?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
