In a landmark legal battle, the Supreme Court has upheld the conviction in the acid attack case, concluding the long-fought battle for justice. The case involved the accused and the victim, with the court delivering a crucial judgment to ensure accountability and deterrence in such heinous crimes.
Facts
- The accused-appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 326 IPC and sentenced to one year of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-
- The revision petition filed by the accused was dismissed by the High Court of Kerala as there were no grounds to interfere with the lower courts’ findings
- The appeal before the Additional District and Sessions Judge was also dismissed, citing the grievous nature of the injuries inflicted, which hindered the victim’s ability to pursue ordinary activities
- The current appeal challenges the judgments dated 23.09.2004 and 05.06.2018, upholding the conviction of the accused under Section 326 IPC
- Accused No. 2, wife of the appellant, was acquitted due to lack of evidence against her.
- Witnesses PW-3, PW-4, and PW-5 testified to seeing the victim running towards a teashop.
- The victim, PW-1, stated that the appellant poured red-colored liquid on him from a yellow bucket, causing burns on the left side of his body.
- PW-1’s testimony was supported by his mother, PW-2, who witnessed the incident.
- The victim remained hospitalized for 3 months due to the injuries and was unable to carry out his daily routine during that time.
- The treating doctor, PW-8, confirmed acid burns on the victim’s body and the possibility of disfigurement.
- Defense witness DW-1 testified that the appellant was working as a carpenter at the time of the incident.
- The incident occurred on 26.11.1997 when the appellant and his wife poured acid on the victim while he was passing through Mannathara-Thopramkudy Panchayat Road.
- The appellant and the victim had prior enmity, which allegedly led to the acid attack causing serious injuries.
Also Read: Constitutional Validity of Domicile-based Reservation in PG Medical Courses
Arguments
- The learned counsel argued that the victim was able to follow his ordinary pursuits without any aid according to the doctor’s opinion.
- It was emphasized that the necessary elements of Section 320 IPC are not established in this case.
- The learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the submissions made on behalf of the appellant.
- The appellant has rightly been convicted for the offence under Section 326 of IPC.
- The punishment awarded to the appellant, one year of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, is considered inadequate but not enhanced considering the overall circumstances of the case.
Also Read: The Case of Alleged Self-Defense: Jayapal vs. The State of India
Analysis
- The legislature introduced Sections 326A and 326B IPC to address the seriousness of offences involving acid attacks.
- In the case under consideration, the punishment appears inadequate given the gravity of the offence.
- The victim’s inability to carry out daily routines during hospitalization was not challenged in cross-examination.
- The act of causing grievous hurt with acid is described as gruesome and horrendous, leading to severe pain and lasting misery for the victim.
- The victim’s extensive acid burn injuries and long hospitalization suggest severe bodily pain for more than 20 days.
- The victim suffered permanent disfigurement, as confirmed by the doctor’s testimony and the examination in court.
- The evidence on record, including victim and witness testimonies, establishes the appellant’s act of pouring acid on the victim.
- Section 326 of IPC deals with voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
- The punishment for such an offense can be imprisonment for life or up to ten years, along with a fine.
- The victim in the present case suffered extensive injuries from acid burns, as stated in the wound certificate.
- The appeal has been dismissed.
- The accused-appellant committed the offence in 1997.
- The accused-appellant is now 63 years old.
- The court refrains from enhancing the punishment due to the age of the accused.
Also Read: Unlawful Assembly: Collective Liability Judgment by Supreme Court of India
Case Title: OMANAKUTTAN Vs. THE STATE OF KERALA
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000873-000873 / 2019
