Karnataka HC upholds life sentence of man for throwing acid on woman

Read Judgment: MAHESHA S/O JATTEPPA v. STATE BY MALEBENNUR POLICE 

LE Staff

Bengaluru, July 27, 2021: Expressing anguish that an acid attack is not just a crime against the victim but against the whole of civilized society and is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution, the Karnataka High Court has upheld the life sentence of a jilted lover who threw acid on a woman.

The High Court also confirmed Rs 10 lakh fine imposed by the trial court on the accused which is to be paid to the victim.

Observing that crimes against women are a “never ending cycle”, the Division Bench of Justices B Veerappa and Justice V Srishananda observed that throwing acid on young women and children is more dangerous than murder and said the court was shocked by the incident.

“When a woman is thrown acid on her face, what is inflicted is not merely physical injury but the deep sense of some deathless shame. She has to hide her face to the Society and the victim woman’s body is not a plaything and the accused cannot take advantage of it in order to satisfy his avenger and the Society will not tolerate such things any longer. Therefore, it is high time to deal with the criminals/acid attackers with an iron hand,” opined the Bench. 

Quoting Swami Vivekananda who had said “the best thermometer to the progress of a nation is its treatment of its women”, the Bench emphasized on the scope of ‘right to life’ enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The appellant in this case was convicted by the Sessions Judge for offences punishable u/s 326A of IPC for voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid. He was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs 10 lakh. 

Challenging the trial court’s verdict before the High Court, counsel for the appellant contended that the lower court verdict convicting the accused under the provisions of Section 326A and 307 of IPC was erroneous and contrary to the material on record.

Opposing the same, the government advocate pleaded that though the victim had covered her face with her hands, the acid thrown at her by the appellant fell on her head, entire face, and two hands. 

After considering the arguments, the High Court opined that the alleged brutal acid attack by the accused on the victim merely on the ground that she refused to marry him as her parents did not give consent, had “shocked” its “conscience”. 

Reiterating that the accused cannot treat the victim as a slave and pour acid on her face and body, the Bench observed that the ‘acid attack’ by the accused not only caused physical injuries, but left behind a permanent scar on her life.

Expressing concern over the growing number of acid attack cases, the High Court stated that ‘right to life’ is a fundamental right guaranteed and it is the fundamental duty of the State to protect it. 

The Division Bench said that the main problems are social weakness of women in society and the existence of male dominated society. Moreover, the easy availability of acid in an inexpensive manner makes the perpetrators use this as an ideal weapon against women. 

At the same time, the High Court proceeded to set aside the life imprisonment handed down by the trial court to the accused u/s 307, observing that the Trial Judge had failed to note that when there were two sentences and major sentence contemplates life, the other sentence which also contemplates life sentence automatically merges. 

The High Court further said that in case a person is sentenced for conviction of several offences, including that of life imprisonment, the proviso to Section 31(2) shall come into play and no consecutive sentence can be imposed.

Thus, it was held that the appellant can be punished only u/s 326A of IPC and the said action of the accused cannot be tried and punished u/s 307 of IPC as well.