Acid attacks: Poor law enforcement, low compensation aggravate pain for victims

The acid attack on a 17-year-old girl from Dwarka in Delhi, who is battling burn injuries in Delhi’s Safdarjung hospital, has put the focus back on the peril of such violence and the plight of the survivors. The three accused have been remanded to two-day police custody.

In 2013, Parliament made amendments to criminalise acid attacks and to provide compensation to survivors of such attacks for the medical expenses.

Until 2013, acid attack was not recognised as a separate offence under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). After the Criminal Law (Amendment Act) 2013, Section 326A and 326B were inserted in the IPC providing punishment for acid attacks and attempted acid attacks. The amendment was brought about primarily to control and prevent acid-attacks, a type of gender-based crime against women.

The operative parts

Section 326A of the IPC deals with voluntarily causing permanent or partial damage, deformity, disfigures, burns, disables by use of acid. The minimum punishment under this section is imprisonment for 10 years, which may be extended to imprisonment for life and fine, and should be as per the victim’s medical expenses.

Watch: Survivor moots stringent laws to prevent future acid attacks

Section 326B of the IPC criminalises the act of voluntarily throwing or attempting to throw acid with the intention to cause harm. The minimum punishment for this is five years’ imprisonment, which can be extended up to seven years with fine.

Breaking it down, Advocate Aparna Bhat said that in cases where the impact is very severe, the ‘attempt to murder’ provision under (Section 307) also can be invoked. If the victim succumbs to the acid attack, then murder provision (Section 302) is invoked. Both section 326A and 326B are non-bailable offences, she added.

Section 326 talks about grievous hurt caused by dangerous weapons or means, whereas 326A and 326B specifically deal with acid attack cases, Bhat added.

SC ban on over-the-counter sale

In 2013, the Supreme Court banned the over-the-counter (OTC) sale of acids across India.

The apex court also directed states to issue acid sale licences to select retailers who were asked to keep a record of those buying acid and submit the list to the nearest police station. It was only to be sold to people with valid ID proof and only if the buyer could satisfactorily explain the reason for procuring the chemical.

Also read: Only 31 acid attack cases disposed in 2018; 93% pendency at courts

Advocate Bhat drew attention towards the rampant flouting of the apex court’s guidelines. “In transactions that involve e-commerce sites, at least an electronic trail is available, but in the OTC sales of corrosive substances, there is no trail whatsoever,” observed the lawyer, who represented Laxmi Agarwal, a victim of acid attack. 

Commenting on the Central Consumer Protection Authority’s notice to Flipkart, she said, “We must first regulate its sale in our neighbourhood shops as it is much easier to go unnoticed in those shops.”

Echoing Bhat, Advocate Sunil Mallan said that the solution lies in better implementation of the existing law. “A stronger law does not necessarily act as a deterrent. Death penalty can be taken as a case in point. Has it deterred people from committing rarest of rare crimes? Society needs to work on two levels — creating awareness and making boys more gender-sensitive. That is the only way forward,” said the Chandigarh-based advocate.

The issue of compensation

Section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with a general clause on compensation schemes to the victims, who have suffered loss or injury. There are as many as five schemes under which compensation or damages are given in the form of money to the victims of acid attack. The attacker is liable to pay a fine and take care of the medical expenses of the victim.

Also read: Penalty for acid attack, death for rape in Maharashtra’s new draft Bills

However, Lal Bahadur Singh, an acid attack survivor from Uttar Pradesh said that the compensation based on the severity of the burn is inadequate. “When I enquired about the treatment, I was told it would cost me at least ₹15 lakh since I had to undergo multiple surgeries. How is the government-mandated compensation (₹8 lakh in case of disfigurement of face) adequate?” he asked.

Narrating his trauma, Singh said it was only during winters that he could sleep peacefully. “During summers, I keep cursing my fate as there is always a burning sensation in my left arm, which suffered 80 per cent burn. The emotional scars will never heal. I feel like a dead person even though I continue to breathe,” said Singh with moist eyes.