Begin typing your search...

    ‘Scale of injury in acid attacks not a factor in awarding penalty’

    Even as the MHC modified the conviction and sentence of 10 years RI to seven years accorded to a person for throwing acid on a woman, it refused to accept the arguments of the counsel for the accused that the injuries of the victim were simple in nature and hence the penal provisions of 326(A) and 326(B), which deals with voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid under IPC, will not attract

    ‘Scale of injury in acid attacks not a factor in awarding penalty’
    X
    Madras High Court

    Chennai

    In a first order of this kind passed after the amendment (326 (A) and 326 (B) with effect from February 3, 2013) to penal provisions on the recommendations of Justice JS Verma Committee on acid attack, Justice RMT Teekaa Raman, said, “A close scanning and scrutiny of the words and phrases of the amendment, will clearly go to show that to attract the penal provisions of above two Sections, the use of the weapon for crime should be “acid” and the victim should have suffered either permanent or partial damage or any deferment or burns or maims or disfigurement.” 

    “So, if it is established by the prosecution, then the above two Sections 326(A) or 326(B) IPC will come into play, despite whether the injury is simple or grievous as defined under Section 320 IPC,” the judge added.

    The matter relates to a Criminal appeal filed by the accused M Siluvai Murugan @ Murugan of Coimbatore seeking to set-aside the conviction and sentence passed by the III Additional Assistant Sessions Court at Coimbatore convicting him for 10 years rigorous imprisonment (RI) and to pay a fine of Rs 10,000. 

    The prosecution had contended that the accused threw acid on the face of one Suseela for not talking with him and owing to this Suseela suffered simple injury on her right face, right forehand, left thigh, right forehead and left chest and created a permanent scar on her. Contesting the same, the counsel for the accused had submitted that in the absence of any permanent disfigurement, the offence under Section 326(A) and (B) of IPC is not attracted and hence the sentence is liable to be set-aside. 

    Justice Teekaa Raman, while referring to the amendments said, “Taking into consideration the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the act of the accused in throwing the substance of liquid with the percentage and the consequent injury on the body of the victim, the case in hand will squarely fall under Section 326(B) and not under Section 326 (A) of the IPC.”

    Visit news.dtnext.in to explore our interactive epaper!

    Download the DT Next app for more exciting features!

    Click here for iOS

    Click here for Android

    migrator
    Next Story