Acid Attack Among Most Grievous Crime, Can’t Close It’s Eye To The Unseen Psychological Pain: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has recently refused to grant bail to an accused on the ground of prolonged incarceration in an acid attack case.

Court stated that it can’t close its eyes to the unseen psychological pain of the victim as it is essential to establish a formidable deterrent to such offences.

The high court stated that an acid attack was “among the most grievous crimes in contemporary society” and the accused’s agony of long incarceration has not to be appreciated on the similar lines as the victim’s wait for justice.

The accused sought his release on the ground that the minimum punishment for the offence was 10 years and he already spent a period of 9 years in judicial custody.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma stated an acid attack is a very serious offence, often results in life-altering injuries, causing not only physical pain but also emotional scars that may never heal, and in such cases, the court’s role as a guardian of justice needs to come to the fore.

The court stated in an order dated September 4, “This court cannot close its eyes to the unseen psychological pain, and the aftermath faced by the victim which continues throughout her life and how this incident may have evoked fear and insecurity in many girls in the society.”

The court observed, “While the accused may bemoan his long incarceration while the trial is continuing, he wants to come out of the jail to breathe in fresh air and be the same person again. This court while exercising judicial discretion cannot ignore that the victim has to wear black glasses most of the time of her life as she did in the court lest questions or questioning eyes about the scar marks on her face again traumatize her every moment of life taking away the pleasure of leading a normal life in future.”

The court, while asking the trial court to conclude the trial in the case within 4 months after taking it up on a day-to-day basis, said that the bail orders have a far-reaching effect on the society as they carry the responsibilities towards societal expectations and serve as a means of preventing and discouraging crimes like acid attacks.

The order stated, “This court remains acutely conscious of the far-reaching consequences of its decisions, particularly in cases involving heinous crimes such as acid attacks. These acts of violence not only inflict physical and psychological trauma on victims but also sow seeds of fear and insecurity in society. Hence, it is essential that the court establishes a formidable deterrent against such offenses.”

Justice Sharma stated, should be cognizant of its role as a guardian of justice and a protector of the society and must employ its authority judiciously to ensure a safer, and compassionate world for all.

Judge added that acid attacks send shockwaves through communities, spreading fear and anxiety and the court’s role in granting or denying bail in such cases is of vital significance.

In the present case, a 30-year-old woman, working as a senior resident in a government hospital here, became a victim of acid attack in broad daylight in Rajouri Garden area in 2014.

Therefore, it was alleged that another doctor conspired with the bail applicant to throw acid on the victim after she rejected his marriage proposal.

The court stated while it agreed that the accused, a compounder, has remained in jail for long and his personal liberty stood curtailed, the victim suffered about 41% disability of the right eye as well as unassessable fear, anxiety and psychological pain and was also hostage of an unseen psychological trauma.

It stated that the accused had “meticulously devised and rehearsed a plan to commit this heinous act, with the clear intention of devastating” the future of the victim.

It added, “Throwing acid on a girl or any other person with a view to disfigure their faces etc. with a malice so atrocious so as to disfigure and disable a person for life, as in the present case when she was on verge of getting married to another person, knowing-fully well that she will have to live with disfigured face for life, is a very serious offence.”