Kerala High Court Upholds Life Sentence for Acid Attack on Wife and Children | Holds Lessee Cannot Be Convicted for House Trespass Under Section 450 IPC
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Kerala Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K. V. Jayakumar upheld the conviction and life sentence of a man under Section 326A of the IPC for a 2019 acid attack on his wife and four minor children, which left one child permanently blind and caused serious injuries to the others. In the same judgment, the Court set aside his conviction under Section 450 for house trespass, noting that a person in lawful possession as a lessee cannot be convicted for that offence. The Court also directed the State to pay ₹3 lakh compensation to each victim.
The case arose from an incident on 17 January 2019 at about 3:00 a.m., when the accused allegedly poured acid through the window of a rented house in Pambakuda, Ernakulam, where his wife and four minor children were sleeping. The attack caused severe injuries to all five victims, including permanent loss of eyesight to one child. The prosecution alleged that the accused acted out of animosity toward his wife due to domestic disputes and suspicion regarding her conduct.
Following the incident, the victims were taken first to Taluk Hospital, Piravom, and later to the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam, for further treatment. The police recorded the wife’s statement at the hospital and registered a case. During the investigation, the police seized a steel cup allegedly used to pour the acid and a can recovered from the accused’s house, which a witness identified as having been stolen from his premises. The accused himself had burn injuries consistent with acid exposure, for which no explanation was provided.
At the trial, the wife and children testified about the incident and their injuries but stated they did not see the assailant at the time of the attack. Medical experts confirmed that the injuries on the victims and the accused were consistent with an acid attack. The trial court convicted the accused under Sections 326A (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid) and 450 (house trespass in order to commit an offence punishable with life imprisonment) of the IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment and imposing fines.
The Court observed that “the object of the newly inserted Sections is to ensure severe punishment to the offenders and also to award just and reasonable compensation to the victims.”
It found that “the accused used to torture her, both physically and mentally, after consuming liquor. Previously, a crime was registered and the accused was remanded for about 35 days on the basis of her complaint.” The Court further noted that the accused suspected his wife’s fidelity and feared she and the children would shift to a new house without him.
Regarding the medical evidence, the Bench recorded that the victims had sustained severe burn injuries, while the accused also bore recent acid-related wounds. “The medical evidence in this case clearly indicates that both the accused and the victim sustained fresh burn injuries caused by the use of acid. No explanation has been provided by the accused regarding the cause of his burn injuries.” The Court considered this a vital link in the circumstantial chain.
On the recovery of material objects, the Court found that the green can (MO-5) was identified by a neighbour who used to store acid for rubber processing and had reported its theft. The Court accepted that the can was recovered from the accused’s bathroom. The steel cup (MO-2) used to pour the acid was recovered at the accused’s instance, corroborating the prosecution case. “Even after a careful evaluation of evidence, we do not find any reason to disagree with the conclusion of the learned Sessions Judge,” the Court stated.
However, the Court found merit in the challenge to the conviction under Section 450 IPC, which deals with house trespass. It observed that the prosecution had not established that the accused entered premises in the possession of another. PW11, the landlord, had confirmed that the accused was the lessee of the house. The Bench stated that “since the accused is in possession of the house, there can be no criminal trespass or house trespass in the instant case. Therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge for the offence under Section 450 of the IPC cannot be sustained.”
On sentencing, the Court justified the life imprisonment under Section 326A IPC, stating that the offence involved the appellant’s wife and minor children and that “considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are unable to accept the contentions of the appellant that the sentence of life imprisonment ordered by the trial court is harsh or excessive.”
Regarding compensation, the Court found that the trial court had failed to apply its mind under Section 357A Cr.P.C. It noted that “in cases of acid attack, it is the bounden duty of the Courts to ensure that the victim is adequately compensated.” Referring to the Supreme Court decisions in Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra (2013 KHC 4371), Laxmi v. Union of India (2014) 4 SCC 427, and Parivartan Kendra v. Union of India (2015 KHC 4784), the Bench stated the need for meaningful victim compensation. It held that the word “may” in Section 357A(3) should be interpreted as mandatory.
In its final order it stated: “The Criminal Appeal is allowed in part. The conviction and the sentence imposed under Section 450 of the IPC are hereby set aside. The State Government is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.3,00,000 (Rupees Three lakhs only) each to PWs.1 to 4 and CW5, the victims, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.”
It observed that “the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in not awarding compensation to the victims. The learned Sessions Judge has overlooked this vital aspect.”
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Appellant: Sri. P. Mohamed Sabah, Sri. Libin Stanley, Smt. R. Gayathri, Sri. Sadik Ismayil, Smt. Saipooja, Sri. M. Mahin Hamza, Smt. Safiya Akbar.
For the Respondent/Complainant: Smt. Ambika Devi, Special Public Prosecutor; Smt. Bindu O.V., Public Prosecutor.
Case Title: XXXXXX v. State of Kerala
Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:68773
Case Number: Crl. Appeal No. 548 of 2022
Bench: Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V, Justice K. V. Jayakumar
