Acid attack perpetrators should be tried for attempt to murder, says Supreme Court

NEW new delhi: The sublime margaret court on th observed that perpetrators of battery-acid attacks are a “threat to society” and must be dealt with an “iron hand” as it came across the plight of victims who had been forced to ingest acid, leading to perpetual damage to their organs.“In the penal code, such ruthless and brutal cases should have stringent conditions more than those in special laws such as UAPA, etc. These people are a threat to society, to the people. The law and the criminal justice system must deal with them with an iron hand to act as a preventive measure,” said a bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and justice Joymalya Bagchi.The bench also proposed that while the culprits were usually tried for causing grievous hurt, it may be appropriate to try them for ‘attempt to murder’ which carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.“In matters where the victim of an acid attack has survived, the corresponding offence of Section 307 IPC should be there as such an act is bound to cause an irreversible damage,” the bench observed.The court’s observation came during a hearing on a petition filed by acid attack victim Shaheen Malik who underlined that though the victims suffered their entire life, the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act (RPwD), which recognises acid attack victims as a category of beneficiaries, did not extend benefits to victims who had been forced to ingest acid as their “disfigurement” cannot be assessed.Last week, the court issued notice to the Centre on Malik’s petition to explore if suitable changes could be introduced in RPwD. It had also sought information from all high courts to know the status of pendency of acid attack trials in the country after learning that the trial in Malik’s case had been pending since 2009 in a Delhi court. The bench has asked solicitor general Tushar Mehta to see that the trial, which had been expedited, is completed by December 31.On Thursday, the court issued notice to all states and union territories as well and kept the matter after six weeks after the Centre sought more time to propose a policy framework for victims who are forcibly administered acid.Malik, assisted by advocate Sija Nair, told the court that in such cases, the perpetrators are mostly husbands or in-laws who commit such brutality on wives to settle matrimonial and other cases.Mehta, who appeared for Centre, described such acts as “horrendous” and informed the court that during his discussions with government officials, an apprehension was expressed that if such victims were to be included as beneficiaries under the RPwD, there was a possibility of misuse by persons and hence the standards need to be fixed to assess the victim who is to be benefitted.Malik said in the petition that under the RPwD Act, “acid attack victim” means a person disfigured due to a violent assault by “throwing of acid or similar corrosive substance”. Due to this definition, those forced to ingest acid do not come under this category.At the same time, Section 124 (1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2024 relates to persons who administer acid to victims and the offence is punishable with a minimum jail sentence of ten years that may extend to life imprisonment.The petition said, “A comparison of the definitions of ‘acid attack victims’ under the BNS, 2024, and the RPwD Act, 2016, highlights a critical disparity. Though the act of forcefully throwing or administering acid is punishable under the BNS, the victims who have been administered acid forcefully are not included in the definition of acid attack victims under the RPwD Act.”The court also raised concerns about the lack of financial resources of victims who need lifelong treatment.“We will take up after six weeks and see what can be done. Under the scheme of National Legal Service Authority, there is a cap of ₹3 lakh for the victim… they require perpetual medical treatment which is long term that cannot be generally available to victims from poor financial background,” the bench said.