RAVADA SASIKALA versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.

Citation: [2017] 2 S.C.R. 379 · Decided: 27-02-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 15 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 2 S.C.R. 379 
RAVADA SASIKALA 
v. 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 406-407of2017) 
FEBRUARY 27, 2017 
[DIPAK MISRA AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 326 and 448 - Acid attack on a 
young girl by the boy trespassing into the girl's house - Due to non 
acceptance of boy's proposal for marriage - Dis.figuration of some 
part of the body due to acid attack - Conviction of the boy ulss. 
326 and 448 and sentenced to one year RI with fine - High Court 
modified the sentence to the period already undergone, that is 30 
days - On appeal, held: Acid attack on a young girl is an uncivilized 
and heartless crime committed by the accused - Crime of this nature 
does not deserve any kind of clemency - There is medical evidence 
that there was an acid attack on the young girl and the 
circumstances proved by cogent evidence and the conviction was 
upheld, there was no justification to reduce the sentence to the 
period already undergone - It cannot be understood whether the 
iudge was guided by some unknown notion of mercy or rqmained 
oblivious of the precedents relating to sentence or not careful about 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
the expectation of the collective from the court, for the society at 
large eagerly waits for justice to be done in accordance with law -
Sentence imposed by the High Court is set aside and that of the 
trial court is restored - As regards compensation, accused to pay "·" 
compensation of Rs.50,0001- and the State to pay a compensation 
F 
of Rs. 3 lakhs - Acid Attack. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Protection o( society on the one hand and the 
reformation of an individual are the facets to be kept in view. The 
instant .case is an example of uncivilized and heartless crime 
committed by .the respondent No. 2. It is completely unacceptable 
that concept of leniency can be conceived of in such a crime. A 
crime of this nature does not deserve any kind of clemency. It is 
individually as well as collectively intolerable. The respondent 
379 
G 
H 
380 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 2 S.C.R. 
No. 2 might have felt that his ego had been hurt by such a denial 
to the proposal or he might have suffered a sense of hollowness 
to his exaggerated sense of honour or might have been guided 
by the idea that revenge is the sweetest thing that one can be 
wedded to when there is no response to the unrequited love but, 
whatever may be the situation, the criminal act, by no stretch of 
imagination, deserves any leniency or mercy. The respondent 
No. 2 might not have suffered emotional distress by the denial, 
yet the said feeling could not to be converted into vengeance to 
have the licence to act in a manner like he has done. [Para 21] 
[390-F-G; 391-A-B] 
1.2 The approach of the High Court shocks this Oourt. 
When there is medical evidence that there was an acid attack on 
the young girl and the circumstances having broug!tt home by 
cogent evidence and the conviction is given the stamp of approval, 
there was no justification to reduce the sentence to the period 
already undergone. This Court is at a loss to understand whether 
the Judge has been guided by some unknown notion of mercy or 
remaining oblivious of the precedents relating to sentence or for 
that matter, not careful about the expectation of the collective 
from the court, for the society at large eagerly waits for justice to 
be done in accordance with law, has reduced the sentence. When 
a substantive sentence of thirty days is imposed, in the crime of 
present nature, that is, acid attack on a young girl, the sense of 
justice, if this court allows itself to say so, is not only ostracized, 
but also is unceremoniously sent to "Vnaprastha". It is wholly 
impermissible. [Para 22] [391-C-E] 
1.3 The sentence imposed by the High Court is set aside 
and that of the trial court is restored. In addition to the said, on 
the issue of victim's compensation, the appellant is entitled to 
compensation that is awardable to a victim under the CrPC. [Para 
23] [391-F] 
1.4 The respondent No.2 is directed to pay a compensation 
of Rs.50,000/- and the State to pay a compensation of Rs.3 lakhs. 
If the accused does not pay the compensation amount within six 
months, he shall suffer further rigorous imprisonment of six 
months, in addition to what has been imposed by the trial court. 
The State shall deposit the amount before the trial court within 
RAVADA SASIKALA v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & 
ANR.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.