Author: Asmita Sarkar, Heritage Law College
To the Point
Acid attacks are among the most horrifying crimes, leaving survivors with lifelong scars that go far beyond physical disfigurement—they carry immense emotional pain, psychological trauma, and social isolation. To address the amount of this violence, Indian law has introduced strict measures like Sections 326A and 326B of the IPC, now replaced by Section 124 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), which prescribe severe punishments, while Section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, / Section 396 BNSS, 2023 ensures compulsory victim compensation and free medical treatment. These laws are meant to punish offenders and support survivors in rebuilding their lives. Yet, the real concern lies in whether these sentences and compensation schemes are truly effective in preventing such attacks and in helping survivors heal and reintegrate into society.
Legal Jagron
Acid attacks form a terrible manifestation of grievous hurt within criminal law, leading to incurable physical harm, everlasting disfigurement, and severe mental trauma. The penal code under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, namely Sections 326A and 326B, now merged under Section 124 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), mandates severe minimum punishment with obligatory fines that will be dedicated towards rehabilitating the victim. At the procedural level, Section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, being replaced by Section 396 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), institutionalizes the Victim Compensation Scheme, while Section 357C of the Code of Criminal Procedure, / Section 397 of BNSS provide for immediate, free medical aid. While the statutory framework is a progressive victim-centric one, the judicial debate continues whether the harshness of penal sanctions and mechanisms of compensation are adequate as a deterrent, despite the systemic gaps in enforcement, delayed payment of compensation, and low rate of convictions.
The Proof
The preventive impact of the acid attack legislation in India can be studied through statutory provisions, judicial rulings, and crime data. Under the IPC (Sections 326A–326B), which is now substituted by Section 124 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), the culprits are entitled to at least ten years’ imprisonment (extendable to life) and fines to be used for the medical treatment of the victim.
Judicial interventions have supplemented these rights: in Laxmi v. Union of India (2014) 4 SCC 427, the Supreme Court ordered regulation of acid sales and highlighted prompt compensation. Analogously, in Parivartan Kendra v. Union of India (2016) 3 SCC 571, the Court emphasized timely rehabilitation for victims. Notwithstanding such directions, NCRB statistics indicate acid attack cases are still being reported on an annual basis, and convictions are tardy because of procedural failures, hostile witnesses, and a lack of adequate investigation. Further, disbursement of compensation by turns gets delayed bureaucratically, depriving survivors of timely finance for procedures or rehabilitation.
Therefore, the evidence indicates that although in theory the legislation is strict and victim-oriented, the deterrent potential of the legislation is diluted in practice through lax implementation, administrative slippage, and absence of systematic victim rehabilitation. Deterrence would necessitate not just tough sentencing but also effective implementation, expeditious trials, and guaranteed release of compensation and medical treatment.
Abstract
Acid attacks are one of the most vicious forms of gender violence, causing irreversible physical disfigurement, psychological trauma, and social ostracism to victims. The Indian legal system controls them under Sections 326A and 326B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), now replaced by Section 124 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), with punishments such as imprisonment for life and fines intended to rehabilitate victims. Complementary provisions of Section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), now Section 396 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), make a provision for institutionalized victim compensation, while Section 357C CrPC / Section 397 BNSS provides free and prompt medical treatment. Yet, notwithstanding the strong statutory regime, empirical evidence reflects recurring instances of acid attacks, poor conviction rates, and delays in releasing compensation, casting aspersions on the actual deterrent impact of these provisions. The paper critically analyzes whether existing sentencing and compensation strategies in India actually deter acid attacks and victim rehabilitation or whether structural overhauls are required to enhance enforcement and victim-focused justice.
Case Laws
1. Laxmi v. Union of India (2014) 4 SCC 427
The Supreme Court instructed the regulation of the sale of acid, mandatory minimum compensation of ₹3 lakhs to the survivors, and free medical treatment in public as well as private hospitals.
2. Parivartan Kendra v. Union of India (2016) 3 SCC 571
The court placed heavy stress on rehabilitation efforts and instructed the government to provide the compensation and medical aid within time.
State of Rajasthan v. Parthu (2007) 12 SCC 754
Even before the specific IPC sections being added, the Court had convicted the accused under general provisions of grievous hurt, demonstrating judicial acknowledgment of acid attacks as heinous crimes.
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Nikku Ram (1995) 6 SCC 219
The Court established that the employment of corrosive substances leading to grievous injury invokes strict punishment under provisions governing grievous hurt.
Delhi Commission for Women v. Union of India, 2019 SCC Online Del 7541
Delhi HC laid strong emphasis on strict adherence to the Supreme Court’s orders on curbing acid sales and rehabilitation of victims.
Conclusion
The Indian law on acid attacks, in Section 124 BNS (previously Sections 326A & 326B IPC) and procedural protection in Sections 396–397 BNSS (previously Sections 357A–357C CrPC), is victim-oriented and strict with respect to punishment, obligatory compensation, and gratuitous medical treatment. Judicial orders in cases like Laxmi v. Union of India and Parivartan Kendra v. Union of India have also strengthened these rights further and asked for more stringent regulation of acid sales. Yet, the recurrence of such attacks, meager conviction rates, and tardy release of compensation indicate an important disparity between law and practice. Thus, while the legislation is sound on paper, its deterrent is undermined by systemic failures. Effective enforcement, speedy trials, guaranteed victim assistance, and strict oversight of acid regulation are the only ways for true deterrence, providing survivors with not only legal recourse but also complete rehabilitation.
FAQS
1. What punishment is prescribed for acid attacks?
The punishment includes a minimum of 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment, extendable to life imprisonment, along with a fine to be covered by the victim’s medical and rehabilitation expenses. For attempts (throwing acid without grievous hurt), the punishment is 5–7 years of imprisonment plus a fine.
2. Is compensation for acid attack victims mandatory?
Yes. Under Section 396 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) (earlier Section 357A CrPC), every State must have a Victim Compensation Scheme. The Supreme Court has fixed ₹3 lakh as minimum compensation (Laxmi v. Union of India, 2014).
3. Do victims receive free medical treatment?
Yes. Under Section 397 BNSS (earlier Section 357C CrPC), all hospitals, public or private, are required to provide immediate free medical treatment to acid attack victims.
4. Can acid be freely sold in India?
No. Following the Supreme Court’s directions in Laxmi v. Union of India (2014), acid sale is strictly regulated. Sellers must maintain a register of buyers, verify ID proofs, and sales to minors are prohibited.
5. Do current laws deter acid attacks?
Although the laws are stringent, low conviction rates, delayed trials, and compensation disbursement issues reduce their deterrent effect. Legal provisions are strong in theory but face implementation challenges in practice.
