A medical certificate issued 13 days after the incident recorded no injury and no visible marks: on that footing, the Allahabad High Court has altered an Acid Attack Conviction from Section 326A to Section 324 IPC, holding that a ‘burn’ under the provision must leave a lasting impact on the affected body part.
Lucknow: A simple burn that heals within 13 days, leaving no visible marks, does not amount to “burns” under Section 326A of the Indian Penal Code (grievous hurt by acid), the Allahabad High Court has held while altering an Acid Attack Conviction to Section 324 IPC (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means), in the case of a man found guilty of throwing a corrosive substance on another person [Teerathraj v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Home, Lucknow].
The appeal was decided by a single-judge Bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi. The appellant was not acquitted. Because the imprisonment he had already undergone exceeded the three-year maximum prescribed under Section 324 IPC, the Court directed his release if he is not required in any other case.
A certificate dated 13 days after the incident
The turning point lay in the medical evidence, or the lack of it. The High Court noted that there was no evidence that the injured person had undergone any further treatment, and no expert medical opinion had been obtained on the nature and lasting impact of the injuries.
A medical certificate dated March 30, 2017, issued 13 days after the incident, recorded no injury on any part of his body and no visible marks.
How the Court read the word ‘burns’
Section 326A IPC punishes voluntarily causing permanent or partial damage, deformity, burns, maiming, disfigurement, disability or grievous hurt by the use of acid. Applying the principle of ejusdem generis, the Court held that “burns” cannot be read in isolation and must take colour from the other injuries listed alongside it.
“The word “burns” is a vague term. A person can feel burning sensation of various degrees. The word “burns” used under Section 326-A IPC does not mention the extent or the gravity of the same and so it must be read ejusdem generis with the other words used in the provision. The intention behind the other words used in the provision – permanent damage, partial damage, deformity, maiming, disfigurement, disability, or grievous hurt appears to be that the injury must be severe so much so that it causes the body part to be either altered or gravely affected for a significant period of time. The injury must have some lasting impact on the body part injured.”
Measured against that test, a simple burn that heals within 13 days, without leaving visible marks or causing functional impairment, is not a “burn” within the meaning of Section 326A IPC, the Court held.
The conviction and the prosecution case
The appellant, Teerathraj, had been convicted by the Sessions Court, Raebareli, under Section 326A IPC and sentenced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs 20,000 for an acid attack.
According to the prosecution, the injured person suffered corrosive burns on his neck, head, chest, back, wrist and thigh, covering about 35 per cent of his body, and was referred to the District Hospital for treatment.
Section 324 in place of Section 326A
With Section 326A not made out, the Court asked whether the appellant could still be held liable for causing hurt. It found that the evidence established that he had poured a corrosive substance on the injured person and caused hurt. It therefore set aside the conviction under Section 326A IPC and convicted him under Section 324 IPC, which carries a maximum sentence of three years’ imprisonment, or fine, or both.
As the appellant had already served more than three years, the Court held that he was not required to deposit the fine and directed his release.
What the ruling asks of prosecutors
Section 326A was inserted in 2013 to deal with acid attacks as a distinct and grave offence, carrying a minimum sentence of 10 years. This ruling holds that the gravity built into the provision must be read into each of the injuries it lists, so that the word “burns” is confined to injuries of a severity comparable to deformity, disfigurement or disability, rather than any burning sensation or superficial injury.
The judgment also underlines the importance of medical evidence in acid attack prosecutions. Without follow-up treatment records or an expert opinion on the lasting effect of the injury, the prosecution may establish the act of throwing a corrosive substance but fail to bring the case within Section 326A, leaving the accused liable only for the lesser offence of causing hurt by dangerous means.
Case Title: Teerathraj v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Home, Lucknow
Bench: Justice Subhash Vidyarthi, Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench)
Nature of proceedings: Criminal appeal against conviction by the Sessions Court, Raebareli