19 July 2022 12:40 PM GMT
The Allahabad High Court has clarified that the charge under Section 326A IPC can be framed against the accused even if no grievous hurt has been caused to the acid attack survivor and that grievous hurt to an acid attack survivor is not mandatory in each case.It may be noted that this provision deals with the offence and punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid, etc....
The Allahabad High Court has clarified that the charge under Section 326A IPC can be framed against the accused even if no grievous hurt has been caused to the acid attack survivor and that grievous hurt to an acid attack survivor is not mandatory in each case.
It may be noted that this provision deals with the offence and punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid, etc. It says that whoever causes permanent or partial damage or deformity to, or burns or maims or disfigures or disables, any part or parts of the body of a person or causes grievous hurt by throwing acid on or by administering acid to that person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to life imprisonment.
It may be noted that Section 320 of IPC defines 'Grievous hurt'.
The case in brief
Essentially, the Bench of Justice Om Prakash Tripathi was dealing with a revision plea filed by an accused booked under Sections 326-A, 504, 506 IPC against the order of the lower court rejecting his discharge application under Section 227 Cr.P.C.
It was his case that prima facie, charges under Section 326A IPC was not made out against him as there was no grievous injury on the body of the acid attack survivor. It was further argued that there was no permanent or partial damage or deformity to or burns or maims or disfigures or disables, any part or parts of the body, so charge under Section 326A or 326B was not made out.
On the other hand, the state's counsel submitted that there is prima facie material to frame the charge under Section 326A IPC against the revisionist and that a co-accused had already been convicted under Sections 326A and 506 IPC.
At the outset, the Court observed that in total 9 "OR" has been used in this section which shows that the charge under Section 326A IPC can be framed without grievous hurt to the victim/survivor.
"But grievous hurt to acid burn victim, is not mandatory in each case. Nine "OR" has been used to show that in case of permanent or partial damage, deformity, burns, maims, disfigures, disables any part of the body of the person, or by administering acid to that person, charge under Section 326A IPC should be framed in such situation. Thus, the submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist has no force," the Court observed as it discarded the argument of the counsel for the accused.
The Court also took into account the injuries received by the 18-year-old survivor to stress that she had sustained burn acid injury.
Further, noting that the trial is at the stage of framing the charges, the Court stressed that at the time of framing of charge, the court is not required to screen evidence or to apply the standard of whether the prosecution will be able to prove the case against the accused at the trial.
"Charge can be framed even on the basis of strong suspicion founded on material before the Court. On the basis of above discussion, this Court is of the view that trial court has passed a legal order, there is not manifest error or material irregularity in the impugned order. There is prima facie evidence material against the revisionist to frame charge against the revisionist under Section 326A IPC also and in such circumstances applicant is not liable to be discharged," the Court added.
Consequently, finding no force in the criminal revision, the plea was dismissed.
Case title - Oyas @ Avesh v. State of U.P [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2407 of 2022]
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 327
Click Here To Read/Download Order