The Allahabad High Court has held that to attract Section 326A IPC, which punishes voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid, etc., a burn injury must have a lasting impact on the affected body part.

The Court clarified that a 'simple' burn which heals within 13 days without leaving any visible marks or functional impairment, is not what is envisaged by the expression 'burn' as used in the said section, which contemplates a lasting impact on the affected body part and must be severe enough to alter or gravely affect it for a significant period.

A bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed that the expression 'burns' in Section 326A IPC must be read ejusdem generis with the other categories of injuries enumerated in the provision.

The Court, however, did not acquit the appellant. It set aside his conviction under Section 326A IPC and instead convicted him under Section 324 IPC for voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.

Since the accused-appellant had already undergone imprisonment exceeding the maximum sentence prescribed under Section 324 IPC, the Court directed his release.

Briefly put, the appellant-accused (Teerathraj) moved the High Court challenging his conviction by the Sessions Court, Raebareli, under Section 326A IPC. He had been sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹20,000 for an acid attack on the victim.

According to the prosecution, the victim sustained corrosive burns on his neck, head, chest, back, wrist and thigh, involving approximately 35 per cent of his body. He was referred to the District Hospital for treatment.

The High Court, however, noted that there was no evidence to establish that the victim had undergone any further treatment or that an expert medical opinion had been obtained regarding the nature and lasting impact of the injuries.

The Court also considered a medical certificate dated March 30, 2017, issued 13 days after the incident. The certificate did not record any injury on any part of the victim's body or any visible marks.

On examining the evidence, the Court noted that the injuries had healed within 13 days without leaving visible marks or causing any functional impairment.

The Court referred to Section 326A IPC which prescribes punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid, etc. The provision enumerates several categories of injury, including permanent damage, partial damage, deformity, burns, maiming, disfigurement, disability or grievous hurt.

The Court examined the expression 'burns' in the context of the other injuries mentioned in the provision.

Applying the principle of ejusdem generis, the Court held that the expression could not be read in isolation and had to be understood in the context of the other categories of injury specified in Section 326A.

"The word "burns" is a vague term. A person can feel burning sensation of various degrees. The word "burns" used under Section 326-A IPC does not mention the extent or the gravity of the same and so it must be read ejusdem generis with the other words used in the provision. The intention behind the other words used in the provision - permanent damage, partial damage, deformity, maiming, disfigurement, disability, or grievous hurt appears to be that the injury must be severe so much so that it causes the body part to be either altered or gravely affected for a significant period of time. The injury must have some lasting impact on the body part injured,” the Court remarked.

In this regard, the Court observed that a simple burn which heals within 13 days, without leaving visible marks or causing functional impairment, would not fall within the expression “burns” as contemplated under Section 326A IPC.

After holding that the offence under Section 326A IPC was not made out, the High Court considered whether the appellant could nevertheless be held liable for causing hurt.

The Court found that the evidence established that the appellant had poured a corrosive substance on the victim and caused hurt. It accordingly set aside the conviction under Section 326A IPC and convicted him under Section 324 IPC.

Section 324 IPC provides for a maximum punishment of three years' imprisonment, or fine, or both.

The Court noted that the appellant had already undergone imprisonment for a period exceeding three years. It, therefore, held that he was not required to deposit the fine and directed that he be released if not required in any other case.