While convicting an accused under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for pouring acid on a victim, the Allahabad High Court has held that burn injuries suffered by the victim which healed within 13 days to the extent that they left no visible marks or functional impairment upon the victim's body would fall short of the gravity of the injuries required to attract Section 326-A.

The High Court was considering an appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the CrPC (Code of Criminal Procedure)/ Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) challenging the validity of a judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in a case registered under Section 326-A of the IPC (Indian Penal Code) whereby the appellant was convicted for the aforesaid offence and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years.

The Single Bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi held, “The injuries suffered by the victim healed within 13 days to the extent that they left no visible marks or functional impairment upon the victim's body and therefore the nature of the injuries falls short of the gravity or the seriousness of the injuries required to attract Section 326-A IPC. Therefore, although the victim's medical report mentions that he suffered burn injuries, those burns are not the "burns" as intended by Section 326-A IPC and, therefore, the same would not attract the offence under Section 326-A IPC.”

Advocate Puttu Lal Misra represented the Appellant while Government Advocate represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The victim (PW-2) stated that the appellant was his uncle's son residing in the same village. He stated that on the date of the incident, he was returning from his shop and, as soon as he reached near a tower in the village, the appellant came on a motorcycle along with his two brothers-in-law. The appellant was sitting on the pillion seat carrying acid in a jug, and he poured the acid on the victim, Tara Prasad Mishra. The victim fell down, and the three accused persons ran away towards the toll plaza. The victim was taken to the Community Health Centre. He suffered acid burns on his head, right hand, neck, chest, back, right hand and right thigh and also a laceration on his ear. The victim further stated that he was getting himself treated privately thereafter.

The appellant denied all the allegations and said that a dispute regarding partition of property existed between him and the victim, in which he had succeeded. Due to this animosity, the victim implicated him in a false case. The Trial Court held that the prosecution evidence proved the allegation of commission of offence under Section 326-A IPC beyond reasonable doubt and convicted the appellant accordingly.

Reasoning

Referring to Section 326-A of the IPC, the Bench explained that causing permanent or partial damage or deformity to, or burning or maiming or disfiguring or disabling any part or parts of the body of the victim or causing grievous hurt by throwing or administering acid to the victim, is the first essential condition to attract Section 326-A of the IPC.

The Bench noted that although the medical evidence established that the victim had suffered burn injuries and was referred to the District Hospital, there was no evidence regarding any further treatment undergone by the victim. “There is no evidence regarding any findings recorded by the expert surgeon of District Hospital, Raebareli regarding the nature of injuries suffered by the victim. The medico-legal examination report dated 30.03.2017 issued by PHC Salon, Raebareli shows that no visible marks of the injuries remained after 13 days and, therefore, I am of the view that the injuries suffered by the victim were not grievous in nature”, it stated.

The Bench further held, “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 Bench also held that the injury must have some lasting impact on the body part injured. “At the least the nature of the burn must be such that has a lasting impact on the body part which has suffered a burn. Therefore, a simple burn which heals in 13 days is not what is envisaged by the expression "burn" as used in the said section”, it added.

Considering the testimony of the victim and the complainant to the effect that the appellant had poured acid upon the victim and had caused burn injuries to the victim, the Bench held that the offence under Section 324 of the IPC was made out against the appellant. “There is sufficient evidence to prove that the appellant had poured some corrosive substance on the victim and he thereby caused hurt to him. Therefore, the appellant is liable to be convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 324 IPC”, it further added.

Thus, allowing the appeal in part, the bench set aside the impugned judgment whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 326-A of the IPC. “Instead, the appellant is convicted for a lesser offence under Section 324 IPC for which he is sentenced to the maximum sentence of imprisonment for 3 years and Rs. 10,000/- as fine”, it ordered. Considering that the appellant had already undergone imprisonment for a period exceeding the aforesaid period to which he has been sentenced, the Bench directed the appellant to be set free if he was not required in connection with any other case.

Cause Title: Teerathraj v. State Of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC-LKO:77354)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocates Puttu Lal Misra, Anjali Dubey, Rajiv Mishra, Soniya Mishra Soni Pathak

Respondent: Government Advocate

Click here to read/download Order


Allahabad High CourtJustice Subhash Vidyarthi

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.