Throwing acid on young women more dangerous than murder: Karnataka High Court confirms life sentence of jilted lover who threw acid on woman

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 opined recently.

. Crimes against women are a never ending cycle, the Bench of Justices B Veerappa and V Srishananda observed while also stating that throwing acid on young women and children is more dangerous than murder.

"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. The crimes against women continued in a never ending cycle. As throwing acid on young women or young lady and minor boy is more dangerous than murder and same cannot be tolerated by any father, mother, husband, children of the women etc and society at large. Therefore, it is high time to deal with the criminals/acid attackers with an iron hand," the order said.

. The Court proceeded to quote Swami Vivekananda, who had once stated that the best thermometer to the progress of a nation is its treatment of its women.

. The Court also emphasized on the scope of the right to life enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution.

"Under the Constitution of India, which is called 'Bhagavad Gita', 'right to life' is the fundamental right guaranteed and it is the fundamental duty of the State to protect it. An 'acid attack' by the accused not only caused physical injuries, but left behind a permanent scar on the most cherished position of PW.8, who is a teacher and PW.3, who is the student studying in 'U' KG since their dignity, honour and reputation are involved."

. The Court made these observations while confirming the life sentence of the appellant Mahesha, a jilted lover who had resorted to throwing acid on a woman who had spurned his advances.

. The Sessions Judge had convicted the appellant for offences punishable under Section 326A (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10 lakh in default of payment of fine.

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

. On the other hand, the High Court government pleader contended that though the victim had closed 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 opposing arguments, the Court opined,

“The alleged acid attack by the accused on victim merely on the ground that she refused to marry him as her parents did not give consent, the accused cannot treat the victim as slave and pour acid on her face and body. The brutality of the accused shocks the conscience of this Court."

. In its 68-page judgment, the Court also expressed concern over the growing number of acid attack cases, and analysed the contributory factors for the same.

"Over the last decade, India is witnessing an alarming growth of acid attacks especially on women. The contributing factors are various for these attacks. The main problems are social weakness of women in the 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."

. With these pertinent observations, the Court proceeded to set aside the life imprisonment handed down by the trial court to the accused under Section 307 (attempt to murder).

"Learned Judge failed to note that when there were two sentences and major sentence contemplates life, the other sentence which also contemplates life sentence automatically merges. There cannot be two life sentences though the learned Judge held that the sentence ordered against the accused runs concurrently."

. The 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.

"In the instant case, the accused has been convicted for more than one sentence i.e imprisonment for life with fine of Rupees Ten lakhs for the offence punishable under Section 326A of IPC and imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.50,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC with default sentence. It is well settled that a sentence of life imprisonment implies imprisonment till the end of a convict's normal life and it cannot be directed to run consecutively," the Court said.

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

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

. "The imposition of appropriate punishment is the manner in which the Court responds to the society's cry for justice against such criminals. Justice demands that the Courts should impose punishment befitting the crime so that the Courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime,” opined the Court.

. [Read Judgment]

Throwing acid on young women more dangerous than murder: Karnataka High Court confirms life sentence of jilted lover who threw acid on woman

Rintu Mariam Biju

Related Stories