Himachal Pradesh Acid Attack Case: Supreme Court Modifies Conviction and Grants Compensation

The case of State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. vs. Vijay Kumar Alias Pappu & Anr. is a significant criminal appeal that involves an acid attack on a young woman, Kumari Ishita, in 2004. This case highlights the legal complexities surrounding acid attack crimes and the justice system’s approach to sentencing and victim compensation.

The prosecution’s case against the accused led to their conviction under Section 307/34 IPC by the trial court, sentencing them to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine. However, the High Court modified the conviction, reducing the sentence and altering the offense to Section 326 IPC. Dissatisfied with this reduction, the State of Himachal Pradesh appealed to the Supreme Court.

Incident Overview

The crime took place on July 12, 2004, when the victim, Kumari Ishita, was on her way to college. Two men on a scooter approached her and threw acid from a jug, causing severe burns. In an attempt to alleviate her pain, she jumped into a nearby water tank. Witnesses, including PW-13 Shami Verma, reported the incident to the police.

The police investigation led to the arrest of the accused, who were subsequently tried and convicted. The trial court found them guilty under Section 307/34 IPC and sentenced them accordingly. However, the High Court later modified the judgment, altering the conviction to Section 326 IPC, reducing their imprisonment to five years while increasing the fine to Rs. 25,000 each.

Arguments by the Petitioner (State of Himachal Pradesh)

• The petitioners contended that the crime was a grave offense of acid attack, which should be considered an attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC.
• The prosecution emphasized that the victim suffered severe burn injuries, and the act was intended to cause grievous harm or death.
• They argued that the High Court’s decision to alter the conviction and reduce the sentence was unjustified.
• If the Supreme Court chose not to restore the original conviction, the petitioners urged the court to at least ensure adequate compensation for the victim.

Arguments by the Respondents

• The defense supported the High Court’s ruling, arguing that the accused were young at the time of the offense.
• They contended that since the victim sustained only 16% burns, the offense did not meet the criteria for an attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC.
• The respondents had already served their modified sentence and were released in 2008, making further imprisonment unjust.
• The defense cited the case of Sachin Jana & Another vs. State of West Bengal, where an acid attack causing 50% burns led to a conviction under Section 307 IPC but a reduced sentence of five years.

Supreme Court’s Analysis and Judgment

The Supreme Court examined the case in detail, considering past judgments related to acid attacks. The Court acknowledged that acid attacks are brutal crimes that cause severe physical and emotional trauma.

While maintaining that the conviction under Section 326 IPC was appropriate, the Supreme Court emphasized the need for victim compensation. The Court referred to previous judgments such as Laxmi vs. Union of India, which mandated compensation for acid attack victims, and State of M.P. vs. Mehtaab, which ruled that the State must also provide compensation under the Victim Compensation Scheme.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court modified the High Court’s ruling, ordering the accused to pay an additional Rs. 1,50,000 each to the victim. It also directed the Himachal Pradesh government to provide compensation under the Victim Compensation Scheme.

Compensation for the Victim

The Court noted that sentencing alone does not suffice in cases of acid attacks. The victim suffers lifelong consequences, including disfigurement, emotional trauma, and financial burdens for medical treatment.

Referring to State of M.P. vs. Mehtaab, where the court ruled that compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs was inadequate, the Supreme Court reinforced the necessity of financial assistance. It observed that justice must extend beyond punishment to include rehabilitation.

Final Ruling

The Supreme Court concluded that:

• The conviction under Section 326 IPC and the five-year sentence would stand.
• The accused must pay Rs. 1,50,000 each in compensation to the victim.
• The State of Himachal Pradesh must provide additional compensation as per the Victim Compensation Scheme.
• Failure to pay the compensation would result in six additional months of rigorous imprisonment for the accused.

The judgment reflects the Court’s stance on balancing punishment with victim rights. While it upheld the High Court’s ruling on sentencing, it ensured that the victim received just compensation.

Thus, the appeal was disposed of with modifications, ensuring both justice and financial relief for the victim.

Petitioner Name: State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr..
Respondent Name: Vijay Kumar Alias Pappu & Anr..
Judgment By: Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Justice Ajay Rastogi.
Place Of Incident: Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 15-03-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: State of Himachal Pr vs Vijay Kumar Alias Pa Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 15-03-2019.pdf