Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Acid Attack Case: Omanakuttan vs. State of Kerala (2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 9th May 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 443

Judges: Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. and Dinesh Maheshwari, J.

Can an act of pouring acid on a person be considered “grievous hurt” even if the victim doesn’t explicitly state they were in severe pain for 20 days? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a criminal appeal, focusing on the interpretation of Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This case revolves around an incident where the accused poured acid on the victim, leading to a conviction under Section 326 of the IPC. The court examined whether the injuries met the criteria for “grievous hurt,” particularly concerning the victim’s pain and ability to carry out daily activities. The judgment was delivered by a bench of two judges: Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, with Justice Dinesh Maheshwari authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case involves an incident that occurred on November 26, 1997, around 6 p.m. The victim, Sunil Kumar (PW-1), was walking on a road when the accused, Omanakuttan, along with his wife (accused No. 2), poured acid on him from a ridge beside the road. The prosecution argued that this attack stemmed from previous animosity between the accused and the victim. As a result of the acid attack, Sunil Kumar suffered severe burns on his head, neck, shoulder, and other parts of his body. The police filed a charge sheet against the accused under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Judicial First Class Magistrate initially convicted Omanakuttan under Section 326 of the IPC, sentencing him to one year of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000. However, his wife (accused No. 2) was acquitted due to lack of evidence. Omanakuttan’s appeal to the Additional District and Sessions Judge was dismissed, with the court observing that the injuries caused by the corrosive substance were grievous. The High Court of Kerala also dismissed his revision petition, upholding the concurrent findings of the lower courts. Subsequently, the Supreme Court initially granted Omanakuttan exemption from surrendering but later recalled this order and issued a notice to consider enhancing his sentence.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court referred to Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which defines “grievous hurt”:

“Section 320 Grievous hurt.- The following kinds of hurt only are designated as “grievous”:-
First – Emasculation.
Secondly – Permanent privation of the sight of either eye.
Thirdly – Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear,
Fourthly- Privation of any member or joint.
Fifthly- Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint.
Sixthly- Permanent disfiguration of the head or face.
Seventhly-Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth.
Eighthly-Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits.”

The court also cited Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which specifies the punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means:

“Section 326 – Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means.- 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.”

Arguments

The appellant argued that the victim (PW-1) did not explicitly state in his testimony that he experienced severe bodily pain for 20 days or that he suffered disfigurement. They also highlighted the doctor’s statement that the victim could carry out his daily activities during hospitalization. The appellant contended that these points negate the ingredients of Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The respondent argued that the extensive acid burns suffered by the victim, as evidenced by the wound certificate and the victim’s testimony, clearly constitute grievous hurt under Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. They emphasized the nature of acid as a corrosive substance and the fact that the victim was hospitalized for more than 50 days. The respondent also pointed out that the victim stated he was unable to carry out his daily routines by himself during hospitalization.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the injuries sustained by the victim constitute “grievous hurt” under Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, particularly concerning severe bodily pain and the ability to follow ordinary pursuits?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issue:

Authorities

The Court did not cite any cases or books in this judgment. The Court primarily relied on the interpretation of Sections 320 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court found that the extensive acid burns suffered by the victim, coupled with his inability to perform daily tasks during hospitalization and the permanent disfigurement, clearly fell under the definition of “grievous hurt” as defined in Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Although the Court acknowledged that the punishment awarded appeared inadequate, it refrained from enhancing it, considering the age of the appellant and the fact that the offense occurred in 1997.

The Court held that:

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the severity of the injuries sustained by the victim and the clear definition of “grievous hurt” under Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court emphasized the following points:

• Extensive Acid Burns: The victim suffered significant acid burns on the left side of his body, including the forehead, scalp, neck, back of the chest, left buttock, and front of the left thigh.
• Long Hospitalization: The victim was hospitalized for more than 50 days, indicating the severity of the injuries.
• Inability to Perform Daily Tasks: The victim stated that he was unable to carry out his daily routines by himself during hospitalization.
• Permanent Disfigurement: The trial court noted that the victim had suffered permanent disfigurement on the head, which was also a factor in the decision.
• Corrosive Nature of Acid: The Court recognized that acid is a corrosive substance, making the act of pouring it on someone a serious offense under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The Court’s reasoning was based on a combination of factual evidence and legal interpretation. The factual aspects, such as the extensive injuries and long hospitalization, were weighed alongside the legal definition of grievous hurt under Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The Court’s logical reasoning for the issue can be summarized as follows:

The Court considered the argument that the victim did not explicitly state severe pain or disfigurement but rejected it, emphasizing that the nature of the injuries and the duration of hospitalization implied severe pain. The Court also addressed the doctor’s statement about the victim’s ability to carry out daily activities, clarifying that this did not negate the fact that the victim was unable to follow his ordinary pursuits and suffered disfigurement, which are covered under clauses ‘Sixthly’ and ‘Eighthly’ of Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The Court quoted from the judgment:

“It would be wholly unrealistic to postulate that even with such extensive acid burn injuries from head to thigh on the left portion of his body and long-drawn hospitalisation, the victim may not have been in severe bodily pain for a period of more than 20 days.”

“The victim also stated in his examination-in-chief that he was unable to carry out his daily routines by himself during hospitalisation; and there had not been any suggestion in the cross-examination to challenge such an assertion of the victim.”

“In the given set of circumstances and the facts available on record, the statement of the doctor PW-8 to the effect that the patient could carry on his daily affairs without any aid while being treated in the hospital, does not take away the substance of the matter that the case was clearly covered under clauses ‘Sixthly’ and ‘Eighthly’ of Section 320 IPC.”

Key Takeaways

• Acid attacks causing extensive burns, long hospitalization, and inability to perform daily tasks constitute “grievous hurt” under Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• Victims do not need to explicitly state they were in severe pain for 20 days if the nature of the injuries and hospitalization period indicate severe pain.
• The court will consider the overall circumstances, including the nature of injuries, hospitalization period, and the victim’s inability to perform daily tasks, to determine if the injuries fall under the definition of “grievous hurt.”
• The use of corrosive substances like acid is a serious offense under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that extensive acid burns causing long hospitalization and inability to perform daily tasks constitute “grievous hurt” under Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, even if the victim does not explicitly state severe pain. This case reaffirms the interpretation of “grievous hurt” in the context of acid attacks and emphasizes the seriousness of such offenses. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the court has clarified the interpretation of Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of the accused under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court determined that the injuries sustained by the victim due to the acid attack met the criteria for “grievous hurt” under Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The judgment underscores the gravity of acid attacks and the importance of protecting victims from such heinous crimes.