Kerala High Court Upholds Life Sentence in Acid Attack Case, Mandates Rs. 3 Lakh Compensation Each for Five Victims Under S.357A CrPC - 2025-09-27

Kerala High Court Upholds Life Sentence for Man in Brutal Acid Attack on Family, Orders Enhanced Compensation for Victims

Ernakulam, Kerala - In a significant judgment reinforcing the stringent legal stance against acid attacks, the Kerala High Court has upheld the life imprisonment sentence for a man who perpetrated a heinous acid attack on his wife and four minor children. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K. V. Jayakumar , while confirming the conviction under Section 326A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), set aside the conviction for house-trespass and significantly enhanced the compensation for the five victims, directing the State Government to pay ₹3 lakh to each.

Case Background: A Night of Unspeakable Violence

The case stemmed from a brutal incident on January 17, 2019, when the appellant, driven by enmity and suspicion regarding his wife's fidelity, poured acid through a window onto his sleeping family. The attack left his wife and four children with severe burn injuries. One daughter suffered grievous injuries to her face and eyes, resulting in permanent vision loss.

The trial court, the Additional District & Sessions Court in Ernakulam, had found the accused guilty under Sections 326A (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid) and 450 (house-trespass in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment for life) of the IPC. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for the acid attack and five years' rigorous imprisonment for house-trespass.

Key Arguments in the High Court

The appellant's counsel argued that the conviction was based on insufficient circumstantial evidence, as none of the victims had seen the perpetrator. The defence contended that the prosecution failed to establish the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that the recovery of the steel cup allegedly used in the attack was not legally sound.

Conversely, the prosecution, represented by the Special Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor, maintained that the chain of circumstantial evidence was complete and unerringly pointed to the appellant's guilt. They argued that the trial court had correctly evaluated the evidence and that no interference was warranted.

High Court's Analysis and Ruling

The High Court meticulously analyzed the circumstantial evidence, highlighting four key pillars that established the appellant's guilt:

1. Strong Motive: The court noted the strained relationship, prior complaints of domestic abuse leading to the appellant's arrest, and his suspicion about his wife's chastity.

2. Medical Evidence: Medical reports confirmed that all victims suffered injuries consistent with an acid attack. Crucially, the appellant himself had fresh burn injuries on his face, which the court noted were "caused by corrosion by acid," and for which he offered no explanation.

3. Recovery of Evidence: The police recovered a can used to store acid from the appellant's bathroom and the steel cup used in the attack based on his disclosure statement.

4. Witness Testimony: The testimony of the victims (PW1-PW4), the Panchayat member who rushed them to the hospital (PW5), and the doctors (PW12, PW13, PW15) formed a cohesive narrative.

The judgment stated, "The medical evidence in this case clearly indicates that both the accused and the victim sustained fresh burn injuries caused by the use of acid. No explanation has been provided by the accused regarding the cause of his burn injuries."

However, the Bench overturned the conviction under Section 450 IPC (House-trespass) . The court reasoned that since the appellant was the lessee of the house where his family resided, he was in legal possession of the property. Therefore, the essential ingredient of "criminal trespass"—entering a property in the possession of another—was not met.

Emphasis on Mandatory Victim Compensation

The most critical aspect of the High Court's ruling was its strong rebuke of the trial court's failure to award adequate compensation. The Bench emphasized that awarding just compensation to victims, especially in acid attack cases, is a mandatory duty of the court under Section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) .

Criticizing the trial court's meagre fine of ₹1 lakh, the High Court observed, "In cases of acid attack, it is the bounden duty of the Courts to ensure that the victim is adequately compensated... The word 'may' used in Sub Section (3) of Section 357A IPC should be interpreted as mandatory."

Citing landmark Supreme Court judgments in Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra and Laxmi v. Union of India , the court underscored that victims must not be forgotten in the criminal justice system.

Final Verdict and Directives

The High Court delivered the following verdict:

- The conviction and life sentence under Section 326A IPC were confirmed.

- The conviction and sentence under Section 450 IPC were set aside.

- The State Government was directed to pay a compensation of ₹3,00,000 each to the wife and four children, totaling ₹15 lakh, within two months.

This judgment not only ensures that a perpetrator of a horrific crime faces stringent punishment but also sets a strong precedent on the judiciary's non-negotiable duty to provide substantial and timely compensation for the rehabilitation of survivors of acid attacks.