Acid-Attack Conviction Cut To Section 324 After Burns Left No Marks In 13 Days: Allahabad HC Says Section 326-A Requires Lasting Impact

The appellant was convicted under Section 326-A IPC and sentenced to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹20,000 for allegedly pouring acid on the victim, his cousin, on 17 March 2017.

The victim’s medical examination recorded acid burns over approximately 35% of his body, and he was referred to the District Hospital; however, the record contained no evidence of subsequent specialist treatment or lasting injury.

A medical certificate issued on 30 March 2017 recorded no injury on the victim’s body.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for Section 326-A IPC; the State relied principally on the victim’s testimony.

Section 326-A IPC applies where acid causes one of the specified forms of injury, including permanent or partial damage, deformity, burns, maiming, disfigurement, disability, or grievous hurt.

Maqbool v. State of U.P., (2019) 11 SCC 395, held that grievous hurt is not invariably required where an injury falls within the specified categories, and that the nature of the injury as simple or grievous does not determine the offence.

The court also applied noscitur a sociis and ejusdem generis, reasoning that “burns” in Section 326-A should be read in the context of the other listed injuries and understood as requiring a lasting impact.

Section 324 IPC criminalises voluntarily causing hurt by means of a corrosive substance.

Although the medical evidence established that the victim sustained burns, the court found no evidence of permanent or partial damage, deformity, maiming, disfigurement, or disability; the absence of visible marks 13 days after the incident further supported its conclusion that the injuries had no lasting impact.

It therefore held that the burns did not meet its interpretation of “burns” under Section 326-A, notwithstanding the rule in Maqbool that the listed injuries need not invariably be grievous.

The victim’s testimony, supported by the complainant’s evidence, nevertheless proved that the appellant poured a corrosive substance on him and caused hurt, establishing the lesser offence under Section 324 IPC.

The conviction and sentence under Section 326-A IPC were set aside, and the appellant was instead convicted under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000, with three months’ simple imprisonment in default.

As the appellant had already undergone imprisonment exceeding the term imposed, the court directed that he need not deposit the fine; he was to be released if not required in another case, subject to furnishing the bond and sureties required by Section 437-A CrPC.