Court’s Decision
The Kerala High Court affirmed the life imprisonment of an accused who poured acid on his wife and four children while they were asleep, holding him guilty under Section 326A of the Indian Penal Code for voluntarily causing grievous hurt by acid. The Court, however, set aside his conviction under Section 450 IPC (house trespass), noting that as a lessee, he was in lawful possession of the premises and could not be convicted for trespassing his own residence.
Importantly, the Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K.V. Jayakumar directed the State Government to pay ₹3,00,000 each to the five victims under Section 357A of the Cr.P.C., holding that the trial court failed in its duty to ensure victim compensation. The Court observed,
“In cases of acid attack, it is the bounden duty of the Courts to ensure that the victim is adequately compensated.”
Facts
The case arose from a horrific incident in which the accused, harbouring suspicions about his wife’s fidelity, poured acid into the bedroom window where his wife and four minor children were sleeping. The attack caused permanent blindness in his eldest daughter and serious burn injuries to the others.
The prosecution proved that prior to the incident, the accused had frequently assaulted his wife under the influence of alcohol and had earlier been jailed following her complaint. On the night of the attack, at around 3:00 a.m., the victims were awakened by a burning sensation and screaming in pain. A Panchayat member, who rushed to the scene, took them to the hospital, where the medical staff confirmed acid burns.
Medical evidence revealed that all victims sustained facial burns consistent with acid exposure, and the accused himself had minor acid injuries on his face, which he failed to explain.
Issues
- Whether the conviction of the accused under Sections 326A and 450 IPC was sustainable based on the evidence on record.
- Whether the sentence of life imprisonment imposed was excessive.
- Whether the trial court erred in not awarding adequate victim compensation under Section 357A of Cr.P.C.
Petitioner’s Arguments
Counsel for the appellant argued that the conviction was unsustainable as the prosecution failed to prove identity—none of the victims had seen the perpetrator. It was contended that the chain of circumstantial evidence was incomplete, as the conviction was based solely on suspicion arising from family disputes.
The defence also challenged the recovery of the steel cup (MO-2) allegedly used to pour the acid, arguing it was obtained illegally and could not be relied upon. Citing Rammi @ Rameshwar v. State of M.P. (1999 KHC 1453), the counsel contended that conviction based on such weak circumstantial evidence must be overturned.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State opposed the appeal, maintaining that the prosecution had established the chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt. The accused had a clear motive arising from strained marital relations, was found with acid burns himself, and the recovery of material objects (MO-2 and MO-5) corroborated the prosecution case. The Public Prosecutor argued that medical and forensic evidence together pointed unequivocally to the accused’s guilt.
Analysis of the Law
The Court revisited Sections 326A and 326B IPC, inserted by the 2013 amendment to ensure stringent punishment and fair compensation for acid attack victims. It emphasized that the legislative intent was to both deter offenders and rehabilitate victims, noting that acid attacks cause irreversible damage and lifelong suffering.
Referring to the evidence of the medical officers, the Bench observed that the nature and pattern of burns were consistent with acid attack injuries and not hot water burns. The injuries on the accused’s face, coupled with the recovery of acid containers, were “circumstantial evidence forming an unbroken chain” pointing to his culpability.
However, the Court found the conviction under Section 450 IPC unsustainable. It reasoned that the house where the crime occurred was leased in the name of the accused, and hence, he was in lawful possession of the premises. Since trespass requires unauthorized entry into another’s property, the conviction for house trespass could not stand.
Precedent Analysis
The Bench drew guidance from multiple precedents:
- Vinod Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2025 KHC 7124) — held that motive is crucial in circumstantial evidence cases. The Court applied this to affirm that the accused’s jealousy and prior violence formed a strong motive.
- Jan Mohammad v. State of Bihar [(1953) 1 SCC 5] — reaffirmed that absence of motive weakens the prosecution’s case, but here, motive was clearly established.
- Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra [2013 KHC 4371] — underlined that victim compensation under Section 357A is not optional but a duty, shaping the High Court’s directive for monetary relief.
- Laxmi v. Union of India [(2014) 4 SCC 427] and Parivartan Kendra v. Union of India [2015 KHC 4784] — laid down minimum compensation guidelines for acid attack victims, mandating at least ₹3 lakh compensation, which the Kerala High Court relied upon.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court meticulously evaluated the testimonies of PWs 1 to 4 and the medical officers. The circumstantial chain—prior animosity, motive, matching acid injuries, recovery of implements, and lack of alternative explanation—was found complete.
The Bench noted:
“The medical evidence clearly indicates that both the accused and the victim sustained fresh burn injuries caused by the use of acid. No explanation has been provided by the accused regarding the cause of his burn injuries.”
On compensation, the Court took serious exception to the trial court’s omission, holding that:
“Every criminal court has to apply its mind as to the award of compensation to the victims at the conclusion of a trial.”
It further declared that the word “may” in Section 357A(3) Cr.P.C. should be interpreted as mandatory in acid attack cases to give true effect to victim-centric justice.
Conclusion
The High Court partly allowed the appeal—
- The conviction under Section 450 IPC was set aside.
- The conviction under Section 326A IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment were upheld.
- The State Government was directed to pay ₹3,00,000 each to all five victims within two months as compensation.
The judgment underscores that while punishment is essential for justice, rehabilitation and restitution for victims are equally vital to uphold the spirit of criminal jurisprudence.
Implications
This ruling reinforces a vital precedent in acid attack jurisprudence—that courts must not only convict offenders but also proactively compensate victims. The judgment sets a strong standard by interpreting Section 357A Cr.P.C. as imposing a mandatory duty on courts. It also clarifies that house trespass cannot be made out against one’s own premises, a point that could influence future prosecutions under similar facts.
FAQs
1. What did the Kerala High Court hold regarding victim compensation in acid attack cases?
The Court held that awarding compensation under Section 357A Cr.P.C. is a mandatory duty, especially in acid attack cases, and directed ₹3 lakh each to the victims.
2. Why was the conviction under Section 450 IPC set aside?
Because the accused was the lawful lessee of the house, there was no element of unauthorized entry; hence, house trespass was not made out.
3. What was the key legal takeaway from this judgment?
Courts must ensure that victims of heinous crimes are rehabilitated through compensation, making victimology a central pillar of justice.
