OMANAKUTTAN versus THE STATE OF KERALA

Citation: [2019] 7 S.C.R. 482 · Decided: 09-05-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
482
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 7 S.C.R.
OMANAKUTTAN
v.
THE STATE OF KERALA
(Criminal Appeal No. 873 of 2019)
MAY 09, 2019
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND
DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: s.326 – Grievous hurt by dangerous
means – Acid attack –  Prosecution case was that the appellant
along with his wife-accused no.2 poured acid on the victim on
account of previous enmity due to which victim sustained extensive
acid burns involving forehead, scalp, neck, back of chest as
distinctly stated in wound certificate – Victim remained hospitalised
for 50 days – Conviction of appellant-accused no.1 by trial court
under s.326 and simple imprisonment for one year – Accused no.2
wife of appellant, however, acquitted of the offence – High Court
affirmed the conviction of the appellant –  On appeal, held: The
fact that the victim sustained extensive acid burns on the left side of
his body stood duly proved in  testimony of victim and his mother
and also the testimony of the doctor PW-8 – It was unrealistic to
postulate that even with such extensive acid burn injuries from head
to thigh and long drawn hospitalisation, the victim may not have
been in severe bodily pain for more than 20 days – The subordinate
Courts as also the High Court thoroughly examined the material on
record and returned concurrent findings against the appellant –
There was no infirmity or perversity in such findings – The act of
causing grievous hurt by use of acid, by its very nature, is a
gruesome and horrendous one, which, apart from causing severe
bodily pain, leaves the scars and untold permanent miseries for the
victim – The legislature having taken note of the gravity of such an
offence has, by way of Act No. 13 of 2013, inserted ss.326A and
326B IPC, providing higher punishment with minimum imprisonment
for the offences of voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid
and voluntarily throwing or attempting to throw acid – However,
the fact that the offence was committed in the year 1997 and the
   [2019] 7 S.C.R. 482
482
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
483
accused-appellant having attained the age of 63 years, in such
circumstances, no order for enhancing the punishment is made in
this case.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. The fact, that the appellant poured acid on the
body of the victim was proved beyond any doubt by the evidence
on record, including the testimony of the victim PW-1 as also his
mother PW-2. The fact that the victim sustained extensive acid
burns on the left side of his body also stood duly proved in his
testimony read with the testimony of the doctor PW-8.  There
was no infirmity or perversity in the concurrent findings of the
Subordinate Courts and the High Court.  Section 326 IPC,
provides for punishment for causing grievous hurt by dangerous
weapons or means. The victim sustained the injuries due to the
effect of the acid poured upon him by the appellant. The acid  was
undoubtedly a corrosive substance within the meaning of Section
326 IPC. The victim remained hospitalised for more than 50 days.
It would be wholly unrealistic to postulate that even with such
extensive acid burn injuries from head to thigh on the left portion
of his body and long-drawn hospitalisation, the victim may not
have been in severe bodily pain for a period of more than 20
days. The victim also stated in his examination-in-chief that he
was unable to carry out his daily routines by himself during
hospitalisation; and there had not been any suggestion in the
cross-examination to challenge such an assertion of the victim.
Above all, the Trial Court specifically noticed the fact that the
victim had suffered permanent disfigurement on the head, when
he was examined in the Court. In the given set of circumstances
and the facts available on record, the statement of the doctor
PW-8 to the effect that the patient could carry on his daily affairs
without any aid while being treated in the hospital, does not take
away the substance of the matter that the case was clearly covered
under clauses ‘Sixthly’ and ‘Eighthly’ of Section 320 IPC. In fact,
even the doctor PW-8 stated that there was no immediate
disfigurement during the time the skin was healing; and that the
scars would develop only later. [Paras 7, 9, 10 and 10.1]
[487-C-E; 488-C; F-H; 489-A-C]
OMANAKUTTAN v. THE STATE OF KERALA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
484
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 7 S.C.R.
2. The act of causing grievous hurt by use of acid, by its
very nature, is a gruesome and horrendous one, whi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.