Kerala High Court in XXXXXXXX v. State of Kerala, Crl. Appeal No. 548 of 2022 (2025:KER:68773), delivered on 25 September 2025, dealt with one of the most horrifying crimes of domestic violence—a brutal acid attack committed by a husband against his wife and four children. The judgment highlights not only the gravity of acid violence but also underscores the judiciary’s responsibility to ensure just punishment for perpetrators and adequate compensation for victims.
The Court, while partly allowing the appeal, upheld the conviction under Section 326A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) [now Section 124(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023] and directed the State Government to pay ₹3 lakh each to the five victims.
Factual Background
On the night of 17 January 2019 at 3:00 a.m., the accused (husband of the complainant) allegedly poured acid into the bedroom of his wife and four children while they were asleep. The motive was rooted in domestic discord—suspicions of infidelity and strained relations due to prior abuse and criminal complaints.
- Victims: The wife (PW1) and four children, including a 12-year-old daughter who suffered severe burns resulting in permanent loss of eyesight.
- Earlier incident: On the evening of 16 January 2019, household articles were set ablaze, hinting at premeditation.
- Medical evidence: All victims suffered acid burns on their faces and bodies. The daughter sustained grievous injuries, leading to blindness.
The police registered Crime No. 27/2019 at Ramamangalm Police Station and filed a charge sheet for offences under Sections 450, 326A, and 307 IPC [Section 332, 124(1) and 109 of BNS].
Trial Court Proceedings
The case was tried before the Additional District & Sessions Court, Ernakulam, designated for offences against women and children (S.C. No. 408 of 2019).
- The accused was convicted under Sections 326A and 450 IPC [Section 124 (1) and 332 of BNS].
- He was sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of ₹1,00,000 for Section 326A, and five years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹25,000 for Section 450.
- He was acquitted under Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder).
The trial court, however, failed to apply Section 357A CrPC relating to victim compensation.
Appeal before Kerala High Court
The accused challenged the conviction (Crl. Appeal No. 548 of 2022) on grounds including:
- The identity of the perpetrator was not established (the victims were asleep and did not directly see him).
- Circumstantial evidence was insufficient.
- Recovery of the steel cup (MO-2) allegedly used for pouring acid was illegal.
The prosecution argued that the chain of circumstances was complete, medical evidence was conclusive, and the accused had a strong motive and opportunity.
Issues
- Whether the conviction under Sections 326A and 450 IPC sustainable?
- Whether the circumstantial evidence sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?
- Whether compensation to victims under Section 357A CrPC mandatory?
Court’s Analysis
1. Conviction under Section 326A IPC
The Court observed that acid attack offences are to be viewed with utmost seriousness. Medical evidence confirmed that the injuries were caused by acid and not hot water.
- PW2 (the child victim) sustained second-degree burns on her face and eyes, leading to permanent blindness.
- PW12 and PW13 (doctors) testified that the injuries were consistent with acid attack and grievous in nature.
The accused himself had fresh burn injuries, consistent with accidental exposure while committing the act.
Thus, the conviction under Section 326A IPC (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid) was upheld.
2. Conviction under Section 450 IPC
The High Court set aside the conviction under Section 450 (house trespass to commit offence punishable with life imprisonment).
Reason:
- PW11, the house owner, testified that the premises were leased to the accused, who resided there with his family.
- Since he was in lawful possession, the element of trespass was absent.
3. Circumstantial Evidence
The Court relied on the following chain of circumstances:
- Motive: History of domestic abuse, suspicion of wife’s chastity, and quarrels.
- Medical evidence: Fresh acid injuries on both victims and the accused.
- Recovery: Green can of acid (MO-5) recovered from the accused’s house; steel cup (MO-2) recovered on disclosure.
The chain was held complete and unbroken, pointing towards guilt.
4. Sentencing
The Court held that life imprisonment under Section 326A was neither harsh nor excessive, given that the victims were the accused’s own wife and children.
5. Compensation under Section 357A CrPC (Section 396 BNSS)
The most significant part of the judgment relates to victim compensation.
- The trial court had imposed fines but did not recommend compensation under Section 357A CrPC.
- The High Court, relying on Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra (2013), Laxmi v. Union of India (2014), and Parivartan Kendra v. Union of India (2015), held that courts are duty-bound to award just compensation in acid attack cases.
- It ordered the State Government to pay ₹3,00,000 each to the five victims, in line with Supreme Court directives.
Legal Framework: Acid Attack Laws in India
Section 326A IPC [now Section 124(1) BNS, 2023]
- Punishment: Minimum 10 years to life imprisonment.
- Fine must be just and reasonable to meet medical expenses, and paid to the victim.
Section 326B IPC [now Section 124(2) BNS]
- Punishment: Minimum 5 years, extendable to 7 years, with fine.
Section 357A CrPC (now Section 396 BNSS): Victim Compensation Scheme
- Introduced in 2009, mandates every State to prepare a victim compensation fund.
- Courts must recommend compensation in addition to sentencing.
Broader Context: Acid Attacks in India
Acid violence remains a grim reality in India, often fueled by domestic disputes, rejection of proposals, property issues, and misogyny.
Impact: Permanent disfigurement, blindness, psychological trauma, and social ostracisation.
Legal reforms: Post-2013, acid attack offences were specifically codified under IPC Sections 326A and 326B.
Challenges: Delay in disbursal of compensation, high cost of treatment, and lack of rehabilitation support.
The present case demonstrates how courts can bridge this gap by proactively ensuring compensation.
Conclusion
Kerala High Court’s judgment in Crl. Appeal No. 548 of 2022 is a crucial reminder of the dual responsibility of courts in acid attack cases: punishing the offender with severity and ensuring justice to victims through adequate compensation.
By upholding life imprisonment under Section 326A IPC and awarding ₹3 lakh each to the wife and children, the Court reinforced the principles of victimology, deterrence, and rehabilitation.
This decision not only strengthens the jurisprudence on acid attacks but also emphasises that justice is incomplete without addressing the victims’ suffering and future needs.
Important Link