Supreme Court enhances compensation for acid attack victim: State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Vijay Kumar (2019)

Date of the Judgment: March 15, 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 236
Judges: A.M. Khanwilkar, J., Ajay Rastogi, J.
Can the State be held liable to pay compensation to victims of acid attacks? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question while hearing an appeal regarding the adequacy of punishment and compensation in an acid attack case. The Court enhanced the compensation to be paid to the victim, emphasizing the need for victim support in such heinous crimes. This judgment, delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and Ajay Rastogi, underscores the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring justice and support for victims of violent crimes.

Case Background

On July 12, 2004, a young woman, Kumari Ishita, was attacked with acid while on her way to college. Two individuals on a scooter threw acid on her, causing her to sustain 16% burn injuries. The incident occurred near Khalini-Dhalli By-Pass in Shimla. Shami Verma, a witness, found the victim crying with burn injuries and helped her. The police were informed, and the victim was taken to the hospital. The police registered a case based on the victim’s statement. After investigation, the accused, Vijay Kumar and another, were charged and convicted by the trial court under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court convicted the accused under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing them to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000 each. The accused appealed to the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. The High Court partially allowed the appeal, altering the offense from Section 307/34 IPC to Section 326 IPC. The High Court reduced the sentence to 5 years of rigorous imprisonment but increased the fine to Rs. 25,000 each. The State of Himachal Pradesh then appealed to the Supreme Court against this alteration of conviction and sentence.

Legal Framework

The case involves the interpretation and application of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 307: “Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.” This section deals with the attempt to murder.
• Section 326: “Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance, or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” This section deals with voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
• Section 34: “When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.” This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

The Court also considered Section 357 and Section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), which deal with victim compensation.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments (State of Himachal Pradesh):

• The State argued that the High Court erred in altering the conviction from Section 307/34 IPC to Section 326 IPC.
• They contended that the trial court’s decision to convict the accused under Section 307/34 IPC was correct, given the severity of the acid attack on a young victim.
• The State also argued that the High Court’s reduction of the sentence was unjustified and sought the restoration of the trial court’s judgment.
• If the Court was not inclined to restore the trial court’s judgment, the State argued that the victim was entitled to adequate compensation under the law.

Respondents’ Arguments (Accused):

• The respondents supported the High Court’s judgment, arguing that the offense did not amount to an attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC.
• They submitted that considering the 16% burn injuries, it was not a case of Section 307 IPC and that they had already served their sentence under Section 326 IPC.
• They contended that they had accepted their wrong, undergone the sentence, and were released on December 9, 2008.
• They argued against restoring the trial court’s conviction and sentence.
• They cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in Sachin Jana and Another vs. State of West Bengal, where a similar case with more than 50% burn injuries resulted in a reduced sentence.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the sentence imposed by the High Court was proportionate to the crime, and whether the victim was entitled to additional compensation.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• The Court considered Sachin Jana and Another vs. State of West Bengal [2008(3) SCC 390] to understand the sentencing pattern in acid attack cases, noting that even in cases with severe burn injuries, sentences had been reduced.
• The Court referred to Ravada Sasikala vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another [2017(4) SCC 546] to emphasize the importance of victim compensation under Section 357 and Section 357A of the CrPC.
• The Court relied on Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad vs. State of Maharashtra [2013(6) SCC 770] to highlight the emphasis on victimology and the need for victim compensation.
• The Court cited Laxmi vs. Union of India and Others [2014(4) SCC 427] to emphasize that acid attack victims are entitled to compensation of at least Rs. 3 lakhs under Section 357A CrPC.
• The Court considered State of M.P. vs. Mehtaab [2015(5) SCC 197] and Suresh vs. State of Haryana [2015(3) SCC 227] to support its direction for the State to pay compensation under Section 357A CrPC.
• The Court referred to State of H.P. vs. Rampal [2015(11) SCC 584] to emphasize that compensation should be adequate and that the State should also contribute.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to provide adequate compensation to the victim of the acid attack. While the court upheld the High Court’s conviction under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, it emphasized that the victim’s suffering and emotional distress warranted additional support. The court also considered the precedents set in similar cases and the importance of victim compensation schemes under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The court’s reasoning was driven by a sense of justice and the need to ensure that victims of such heinous crimes receive the necessary financial and rehabilitative support. The court also considered the fact that the accused had already served their sentence, but this did not diminish the need for victim compensation.

Fact:Law Ratio Explanation:
The “Fact” percentage (30%) reflects the court’s consideration of the specific factual circumstances of the case, such as the nature of the acid attack, the extent of the victim’s injuries, and the timeline of events. The “Law” percentage (70%) indicates the court’s emphasis on the legal provisions, precedents, and principles that guided its decision. The court’s primary focus was on applying the relevant legal framework to ensure justice and compensation for the victim.

Logical Reasoning

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to convict the accused under Section 326 IPC, finding that the act did not amount to an attempt to murder. The Court noted that the victim suffered a grievous hurt due to the acid attack, which falls under the purview of Section 326 IPC. The Court then focused on the need for adequate compensation for the victim, considering that such attacks cause immense physical and emotional distress. The Court referred to previous judgments and legal provisions to justify its decision to enhance the compensation.

The Court considered alternative interpretations, such as restoring the trial court’s conviction under Section 307/34 IPC, but rejected it, agreeing with the High Court’s assessment that the offense was more appropriately categorized under Section 326 IPC. The Court also considered that the accused had already served their sentence as per the High Court’s order, but this did not diminish the need for adequate compensation for the victim.

The court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• The act of throwing acid caused grievous hurt, falling under Section 326 IPC.
• The victim suffered severe physical and emotional distress, warranting additional compensation.
• Previous judgments and legal provisions emphasize the need for victim compensation in such cases.
• The State has a responsibility to support victims of violent crimes through compensation schemes.

The Supreme Court, while not interfering with the conviction under Section 326 IPC, emphasized the necessity of victim compensation in acid attack cases. The Court stated:

• “Indeed, it cannot be ruled out that in the present case the victim had suffered an uncivilised and heartless crime committed by the respondents and there is no room for leniency which can be conceived.”
• “A crime of this nature does not deserve any kind of clemency. This Court cannot be oblivious of the situation that the victim must have suffered an emotional distress which cannot be compensated either by sentencing the accused or by grant of any compensation.”
• “After going through the material on record, we are of the considered view that the accused respondents have rightly been held guilty and their conviction under Section 326 IPC and sentence for 5 years at least needs no interference but at the same time, we are disposed to address on victim compensation which may at least bring same solace to the victim for the sufferings which she had suffered.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. Both judges concurred on the judgment and the need for enhanced compensation.

The Court’s decision highlights the importance of victim support in cases of violent crimes, especially acid attacks. It sets a precedent for ensuring that victims receive adequate compensation and rehabilitation, in addition to the punishment of the perpetrators. The judgment reinforces the State’s responsibility to provide financial support to victims of such crimes.

The Supreme Court’s decision has potential implications for future cases involving acid attacks. It reinforces the need for adequate compensation for victims and highlights the State’s responsibility in providing such support. The judgment also clarifies that while the punishment of the perpetrators is important, the focus should also be on providing relief and rehabilitation to the victims.

No new doctrines or legal principles were introduced in this judgment. However, the Court emphasized the existing legal framework for victim compensation under Section 357 and Section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and reinforced the need for its effective implementation.

Key Takeaways

• Victims of acid attacks are entitled to adequate compensation for their physical and emotional suffering.
• The State has a responsibility to provide financial support to victims of violent crimes through compensation schemes.
• Courts should consider the severity of the crime and the victim’s distress when deciding on compensation.
• The judgment reinforces the importance of victim-centric justice and the need for a holistic approach to addressing such cases.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the following:

• The accused shall pay an additional compensation of Rs. 1,50,000 each to the victim.
• If the accused fail to pay the additional compensation within six months, they shall undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months.
• The State of Himachal Pradesh shall pay compensation to the victim under the Victim Compensation Scheme.
• The State shall deposit the compensation before the trial court within three months, and the trial court shall disburse it to the victim after proper identification.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that victims of acid attacks are entitled to adequate compensation, and the State has a responsibility to provide such compensation under the Victim Compensation Scheme. This judgment reinforces the existing legal framework for victim compensation under Section 357 and Section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and highlights the need for its effective implementation. While the court did not introduce any new legal principles, it emphasized the importance of victim-centric justice and the need for a holistic approach to addressing such cases. This judgment does not change the previous positions of law but rather reinforces the existing legal principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Vijay Kumar (2019) underscores the importance of victim compensation in acid attack cases. While upholding the High Court’s conviction under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Supreme Court enhanced the compensation to be paid to the victim, recognizing the severe physical and emotional distress caused by such heinous crimes. The Court’s decision reinforces the State’s responsibility to support victims of violent crimes through compensation schemes and sets a precedent for ensuring justice and support for victims of acid attacks.

Category

• Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 307, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 326, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
  • Section 357, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
  • Section 357A, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
• Victim Compensation
  • Acid Attack Compensation
  • Victim Support
• Criminal Law
  • Attempt to Murder
  • Grievous Hurt

FAQ

What was the main issue in the State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Vijay Kumar case?

The main issue was whether the sentence imposed by the High Court was proportionate to the crime of an acid attack and whether the victim was entitled to additional compensation.

What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s conviction under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, but enhanced the compensation to be paid to the victim. The court directed the accused to pay Rs. 1,50,000 each and the State to pay compensation under the Victim Compensation Scheme.

What is Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?

Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means, such as fire, corrosive substances, or poison.

What is the Victim Compensation Scheme mentioned in the judgment?

The Victim Compensation Scheme is a scheme under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, that provides funds for compensation to victims of crimes who have suffered loss or injury and require rehabilitation. The State is responsible for implementing this scheme.

What is the significance of this judgment for victims of acid attacks?

This judgment reinforces that victims of acid attacks are entitled to adequate compensation for their physical and emotional suffering. It also highlights the State’s responsibility to provide financial support to victims of violent crimes.

What should I do if I or someone I know is a victim of an acid attack?

If you or someone you know is a victim of an acid attack, it is important to immediately seek medical attention and report the incident to the police. You should also be aware of your rights to compensation and support under the Victim Compensation Scheme.