Acid Attack Victims Must Be Compensated Irrespective Of Fine Imposed On Offender: Kerala High Court

Justice Jobin Sebastian clarified that compensation payable as per the Victim Compensation Scheme in accordance with Section 357A Cr.P.C. is in addition to the fine awarded to the offender under Section 357.

“there is no certainty that the fine amount imposed upon the accused would be realised. Consequently, the compensation payable to the victims cannot be made dependent upon the recovery of the fine amount. The compensation envisaged under Section 357A of the Code is independent of, and in addition to, the compensation that may be awarded under Section 357 of the Code. The entitlement of the victims to compensation under the Victim Compensation Scheme cannot, therefore, be curtailed merely because a fine has been imposed upon the accused,” the Court observed.

The Court was considering a petition filed by four victims of an acid attack case, in which the sole accused was convicted by the trial court for committing offences under Section 326A of the Indian Penal Code.

The accused/offender was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of 12 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 40,000. It was directed that the fine amount, if paid or realized, would be given to the victims as compensation. However, no recommendation to award compensation under Section 357A was made by the trial judge.

Though they preferred a petition before the trial court seeking such a recommendation, it was dismissed on the ground that an appeal is pending before the High Court challenging the conviction. Aggrieved, they approached the High Court by filing this Criminal Miscellaneous Case.

The Court referred to Section 357A as well as precedents and remarked that criminal courts have a duty to adequately compensation victims, in cases of acid attacks like this:

“The object underlying Section 357A of the Code, which provides for a victim compensation scheme, is to ensure that victims who have suffered loss or injury as a result of the offence receive adequate rehabilitation, particularly in cases where the compensation awarded under Section 357 is inadequate or where the offender is unable to pay. The provision casts a corresponding duty upon the criminal courts to consider whether a recommendation to the District Legal Services Authority is required for award of compensation under the Victim Compensation Scheme. This obligation assumes greater significance in cases involving acid attacks, where the victims often require prolonged medical treatment, psychological counselling, rehabilitation, and financial assistance.”

Looking at the present case, the Court remarked that the fine amount awarded as compensation was inadequate and moreover, there is no guarantee that the same would even be realized.

“This Court is cognizant of the fact that no amount of money can truly compensate the physical agony, permanent disfigurement and emotional trauma suffered by victims of an acid attack. Nevertheless, the award of reasonable compensation would be a great solace to them. The power to recommend compensation under Section 357A is a power coupled with a duty, and every criminal court is expected to consciously examine the question of victim compensation while rendering judgment, particularly in cases involving acid attacks. Failure to do so constitutes a serious omission,” the Court added.

It took note of the fact that the accused's appeal against conviction has been pending since 2015 but was of the view that in the present peculiar circumstances, pendency of the appeal cannot be a ground to decline relief to the petitioners.

The Court felt that this was a fit case in which its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised to give justice to the victims.

Thus, it allowed the petition and directed the District Legal Services Authority to conduct an enquiry and determine the quantum of compensation payable to the petitioners under Section 357A CrPC within 2 months. It was made clear that the Authority shall all steps to ensure that the compensation awarded is disbursed to the petitioner without delay.

Case No: Crl.M.C. No. 6038 of 2023

Case Title: A and Ors. v. Station House Officer and Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 432

Counsel for the petitioners: Ipsita Ojal, Anil Kumar K.P., Mariyamma A.K.

Counsel for the respondents: Navas V. A. - Sr. Public Prosecutor

Click to Read/Download Judgment