Case at a Glance
A man was convicted by a Raebareli sessions court under Section 326-A IPC for throwing an acidic substance on a relative in 2017 and sentenced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment. The medical evidence showed fresh acid burns over about 35% of the body, but a certificate issued 13 days later recorded no visible injury. The Allahabad High Court held that ‘burns’ in Section 326-A must have some lasting impact on the injured body part, so a simple burn that heals in 13 days does not qualify. It altered the conviction to Section 324 IPC (hurt by corrosive substance) and imposed the maximum three years, which he had already served.
According to the prosecution, on 17.03.2017 the appellant, riding pillion on a motorcycle with two others, poured acid from a jug on the victim, the son of his uncle, in their village in Raebareli district. The medico-legal report recorded fresh acid burns of about 35% of the total body area, on the neck, head, chest, wrist, back and thigh. The doctor noted an acidic odour, but no chemical examination was done. The victim was referred to the district hospital and discharged after three to four days, and a certificate dated 30.03.2017 recorded no visible injury.
On 30.09.2024 the VI Additional Sessions Judge, Raebareli, convicted the appellant under Section 326-A IPC and sentenced him to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹20,000. In appeal, it was argued that there was no evidence of grievous hurt or further treatment, so Section 326-A was not made out. The State relied on the victim’s testimony to prove the attack, but fairly produced the case diary extract showing no injury on 30.03.2017. The appellant had attributed the case to a property partition dispute.
The Key Question Before the Court
Does every burn caused by throwing acid attract Section 326-A IPC, or must the burn have some lasting effect on the victim’s body?
Reading ‘Burns’ in Its Company
Section 326-A IPC punishes causing permanent or partial damage, deformity, burns, maiming, disfigurement, disability or grievous hurt by throwing acid. Relying on Maqbool v. State of U.P., (2018) 09 SC CK 0113, the Court accepted that the injury need not be grievous hurt, but it must fall within one of the listed categories. It observed that “the word ‘burns’ is a vague term” and, applying the rules of ejusdem generis and noscitur a sociis, read it alongside the other seven categories, all of which point to severe injuries. The Court also referred to Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary v. Union of India, (2022) 07 SC CK 0102 and other decisions on interpreting statutes.
The Court concluded: “The injury must have some lasting impact on the body part injured.” Since the victim’s burns healed within 13 days, leaving no visible marks or functional impairment, “a simple burn which heals in 13 days is not what is envisaged by the expression ‘burn’ as used in the said section.” At the same time, the evidence proved that the appellant poured a corrosive substance on the victim, which squarely attracts Section 324 IPC (voluntarily causing hurt by a corrosive substance). The conviction was therefore altered rather than set aside.
What the Court Actually Held
- ‘Burns’ in Section 326-A IPC must be read with the other injuries listed in the section and must have some lasting impact on the injured body part.
- Acid burns that healed within 13 days without visible marks or functional impairment do not attract Section 326-A, even though they covered about 35% of the body when fresh.
- The conviction under Section 326-A and the sentence of 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment with ₹20,000 fine were set aside; the appellant was convicted under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to the maximum of three years with a fine of ₹10,000 (default three months).
- As he had already served more than the sentence, he was ordered to be released, if not wanted in any other case, on furnishing a personal bond and sureties under Section 437-A CrPC, and need not deposit the fine.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Section 326-A carries a minimum of 10 years; this ruling draws a line between acid attacks causing lasting harm and those causing temporary burns.
- It shows how medical follow-up evidence, such as a later certificate showing no injury, can decide which offence is made out.
- Prosecutors and investigators are reminded of the need for chemical examination and full documentation of injuries in acid cases.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Victims and Prosecutors
- Keep complete medical records of treatment, healing time, scarring and any functional impairment; these decide whether Section 326-A applies.
- Ensure the substance is sent for chemical examination; here no such examination was done.
For Defence Counsel
- Where injuries healed quickly without marks, argue for Section 324 IPC instead of Section 326-A, relying on this ruling and Maqbool v. State of U.P.
- Examine later medical certificates and case diary entries on the victim’s condition.
Key Takeaways
- Not every acid burn falls under Section 326-A IPC.
- The burn must have a lasting impact on the body part.
- Healed-in-13-days burns led to conviction under Section 324 instead.
- Sentence cut from 10 years to 3 years, already served.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the punishment for an acid attack under Section 326-A IPC?
Section 326-A provides for imprisonment of not less than 10 years, which may extend to life, along with fine. In this case the trial court had imposed 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment.
Why did the High Court reduce the conviction?
Because the victim’s burns healed within 13 days with no visible marks or functional impairment. The Court held that ‘burns’ under Section 326-A must have some lasting impact, so the offence proved was Section 324 IPC.
Does this mean throwing acid is a minor offence?
No. The Court still convicted the appellant for causing hurt with a corrosive substance and imposed the maximum sentence available under Section 324 IPC. The ruling is limited to the injuries proved in this case.
Conclusion
The judgment interprets the word ‘burns’ narrowly, in keeping with the severe harms listed alongside it in Section 326-A. It does not excuse acid attacks: the appellant received the highest punishment available for the offence actually proved. But it underlines that the heavy minimum sentence under Section 326-A depends on evidence of lasting injury.
Practical takeaway: In acid-attack cases, the healing period, scarring and functional effect of the burns must be proved through medical evidence; without lasting injury, the conviction may fall to Section 324 IPC.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com