Acid Attack under BNS: Section 124, the Laxmi Framework, Victim Compensation and Landmark Cases

A young woman rejects a man's advances. In revenge, he throws acid on her face, leaving her disfigured, partially blinded, and scarred for life. A wife who seeks divorce is attacked with acid by her husband. A student is attacked by a spurned suitor. A dispute over property leads to an acid attack on a rival. Acid attacks are among the most brutal and cowardly forms of violence, causing not only excruciating physical pain but also permanent disfigurement, blindness, social stigma, and psychological trauma that lasts a lifetime. The victims, overwhelmingly women, face a life transformed in an instant of cruelty. For decades, Indian law had no specific provision for acid attacks; they were prosecuted under general hurt provisions. The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, enacted in the aftermath of the Nirbhaya case and following the Supreme Court's directions in Laxmi v Union of India, introduced specific provisions (Sections 326A and 326B IPC, now Sections 124(1) and 124(2) BNS). The Supreme Court also mandated regulation of acid sale and a compensation framework. This module walks through the specific offences, the Laxmi framework, the regulation of acid sale, the victim compensation scheme, and the landmark cases.

1. Introduction

The brutality of acid attacks

Acid attacks are among the most brutal forms of violence, characterised by:

• Excruciating and prolonged physical pain.
• Permanent disfigurement, often of the face.
• Partial or complete blindness.
• Loss of function of affected body parts.
• Lifelong medical treatment and multiple surgeries.
• Severe psychological trauma.
• Social stigma and isolation.
• Loss of employment and marriage prospects.

The overwhelming majority of victims are women, and the attacks are frequently motivated by rejection of romantic or sexual advances, matrimonial disputes, or property conflicts.

The absence of specific law before 2013

Before 2013, Indian law had no specific provision for acid attacks. They were prosecuted under general provisions:

• Section 320 IPC (grievous hurt) - which did not adequately capture the specific brutality of acid attacks.
• Section 326 IPC (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous means).
• The punishment was often inadequate given the lifelong consequences.
• There was no framework for compensation or acid sale regulation.

The legislative and judicial response

The response came through parallel legislative and judicial action:

• Laxmi v Union of India: PIL leading to Supreme Court directions.
• Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013: introduced Sections 326A and 326B IPC.
• Regulation of acid sale.
• Compensation framework.
• Recognition of acid attack as a disability.

2. Section 124 BNS: The Specific Offences

Text of Section 124

Section 124(1): causing grievous hurt by acid

Section 124(1) is the primary offence: actually causing damage by acid. Punishment: not less than ten years, extendable to life, and fine (paid to the victim).

Section 124(2): throwing or attempting to throw acid

Section 124(2) covers the attempt: throwing or attempting to throw acid with intent to cause harm, even if the harm is not actually caused. Punishment: five to seven years and fine.

3. Section 124(1): Ingredients and Punishment

The ingredients of Section 124(1):

• Causing permanent or partial damage, deformity, burns, maiming, disfigurement, disability, or grievous hurt.
• By throwing acid, administering acid, or using any other means.
• With intention to cause such injury OR knowledge that such injury is likely.

Punishment features:

• Minimum ten years (mandatory minimum).
• Extendable to imprisonment for life.
• Fine 'just and reasonable to meet the medical expenses'.
• The fine to be paid to the victim (not to the state).

The mandatory minimum of ten years and the victim-directed fine reflect the specific seriousness with which the law treats acid attacks. The provision covers not only acid but 'any other means' causing similar damage.

4. Section 124(2): Ingredients and Punishment

The ingredients of Section 124(2):

• Throwing or attempting to throw acid, OR attempting to administer acid, OR attempting to use any other means.
• With intention to cause permanent/partial damage, deformity, burns, maiming, disfigurement, disability, or grievous hurt.

Punishment features:

• Minimum five years (mandatory minimum).
• Extendable to seven years.
• Fine (in addition to imprisonment).

Section 124(2) is significant because it criminalises the attempt itself. Even if the acid misses, or is intercepted, or does not cause the intended harm, the perpetrator faces five to seven years. This closes the gap where an attacker might escape serious punishment merely because the attack was unsuccessful.

5. The Meaning of Acid and Grievous Hurt

Explanation to Section 124 defines 'acid':

The definition is broad:

• Includes any acidic or corrosive substance.
• Includes any substance of burning nature.
• Covers substances capable of causing scars, disfigurement, or disability.
• Not limited to specific named acids.

Grievous hurt (Section 116 BNS) includes:

• Permanent disfiguration of the head or face.
• Permanent privation of sight or hearing.
• Destruction or permanent impairment of any member or joint.
• Other categories including any hurt endangering life.

Acid attacks typically cause multiple forms of grievous hurt: disfiguration of the face, loss of sight, and permanent impairment.

6. Laxmi v Union of India (2014)

Facts and background

Laxmi was a 15-year-old girl who was attacked with acid in 2005 by a man whose advances she had rejected. She suffered severe burns and disfigurement. She filed a public interest litigation seeking a framework for prevention of acid attacks, regulation of acid sale, and compensation and rehabilitation for victims. Her case became a landmark in the development of the law.

The core directions

The regulation of acid sale

A central concern of Laxmi was the easy availability of acid. The Court directed:

• Over-the-counter sale of acid to be regulated.
• Acid to be sold only to persons producing photo ID and address proof.
• The buyer to state the purpose of purchase.
• Sellers to maintain a register of sales.
• Minors not to be sold acid.
• Stock of acid to be declared to authorities.
• Penalties for unauthorised sale.

7. Regulation of Acid Sale

Following Laxmi, the regulation of acid sale was implemented through:

• The Poisons Act, 1919 framework.
• State-level Poisons Rules incorporating acid regulation.
• Requirements for sellers: maintain register, verify buyer ID, record purpose.
• Requirements for buyers: photo ID, address proof, statement of purpose.
• Prohibition on sale to minors.
• Declaration of stock to sub-divisional magistrate.
• Educational institutions, hospitals, and other users to keep records and report.

Despite these regulations, implementation has been inconsistent, and acid remains relatively easily available in many places, which continues to be a concern.

8. Victim Compensation Framework

The minimum compensation

The Laxmi framework established minimum compensation:

• Minimum Rs. 3 lakhs to acid attack victims.
• Rs. 1 lakh within 15 days of the incident (for immediate needs).
• Balance Rs. 2 lakhs within 2 months.
• This was a floor, not a ceiling.

Free treatment

The framework mandated free treatment:

• Free treatment at both public and private hospitals.
• Hospitals cannot refuse treatment or demand payment.
• Full cost of treatment including reconstructive surgery.
• This was subsequently codified in Section 357C CrPC (now Section 397 BNSS).

NALSA Scheme

The NALSA Compensation Scheme, 2018 provides enhanced compensation for acid attack victims:

• For disfigurement of face: minimum Rs. 7 lakhs, maximum Rs. 8 lakhs.
• For injury more than 50%: minimum Rs. 5 lakhs, maximum Rs. 8 lakhs.
• For injury less than 50%: minimum Rs. 3 lakhs, maximum Rs. 5 lakhs.
• For injury less than 20%: minimum Rs. 3 lakhs, maximum Rs. 4 lakhs.

The NALSA amounts represent a significant enhancement over the original Laxmi minimum.

9. Acid Attack as Disability

Acid attack victims are recognised as persons with disabilities:

• The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 includes acid attack victims in the list of disabilities.
• This entitles victims to benefits and reservations available to disabled persons.
• Includes reservations in education and employment.
• Includes other benefits and support.

The recognition of acid attack as a disability was a significant step in the rehabilitation framework, acknowledging the lifelong impact of the attacks and providing a basis for ongoing support.

10. Free Medical Treatment: Section 397 BNSS

Section 397 BNSS codifies the free treatment mandate:

• All hospitals (public and private) must provide free treatment to acid attack victims.
• Immediate first-aid and treatment.
• No hospital may refuse or demand payment.
• Failure to comply attracts penalties.
• Includes the obligation to inform police.

This provision addresses the practical reality that victims often faced refusal or demands for payment by hospitals, delaying critical treatment in the golden hours after an attack.

11. Rehabilitation and Support

The rehabilitation framework for acid attack victims includes:

• Reconstructive and cosmetic surgery (often multiple procedures over years).
• Psychological counselling and support.
• Vocational training and employment support.
• Disability benefits under the RPwD Act 2016.
• Reservations in education and employment.
• Support from NGOs (e.g., Stop Acid Attacks campaign, Chhanv Foundation).
• Some victims have become advocates and public figures (e.g., Laxmi Agarwal, whose story inspired the film Chhapaak).

The rehabilitation dimension recognises that criminal punishment of the perpetrator, while essential, does not address the victim's lifelong needs. Comprehensive support is essential for the victim's recovery and reintegration.

12. Landmark Cases and Consolidated Judgments

Consolidated Landmark Judgments

• Laxmi v. Union of India, (2014) 4 SCC 427. Comprehensive framework.
• Parivartan Kendra v. Union of India, (2016) 3 SCC 571. Enhanced compensation.
• State of Karnataka v. Joseph Rodrigues, (2006) SC. Pre-amendment framework.
• Ravada Sasikala v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2017) 4 SCC 546. Enhanced sentencing.
• State of Maharashtra v. Ankur Panwar, (2019) SC. Death penalty for fatal attacks.
• Yogendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2019) SC. Mandatory minimum sentence.
• Marepally Venkata Sree Nagesh v. State of AP, (2002) SC. Matrimonial acid attacks.
• State of U.P. v. Sunil, (2017) SC. Implementation of Laxmi framework.
• Maroti v. State of Maharashtra, (2022) SC. Modern framework.
• State of Madhya Pradesh v. Basodi, (2009) SC. Inadequacy of pre-2013 framework.
• Devanand v. State, (1987) Del HC. Early acid attack framework.
• Syed Shafique Ahmed v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) SC. Framework for acid injuries.
• Sachin Jana v. State of West Bengal, (2008) 3 SCC 390. Framework for grievous hurt by corrosive substance.
• Om Prakash v. State of Punjab, (2011) SC. Framework for attempt cases.
• Gulab Sahebrao Mhaske case. Framework for aggravated hurt.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is Section 124 BNS on acid attacks?

Section 124 BNS (formerly Sections 326A and 326B IPC) specifically criminalises acid attacks. Section 124(1) punishes voluntarily causing permanent/partial damage, deformity, burns, maiming, disfigurement, disability, or grievous hurt by throwing or administering acid (or any other means): imprisonment not less than ten years, extendable to life, and fine (to be paid to the victim for medical expenses). Section 124(2) punishes throwing or attempting to throw acid, or attempting to administer acid, with intent to cause such harm: imprisonment of five to seven years and fine. These provisions were introduced by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, following the Supreme Court's directions in Laxmi v Union of India (2014). The mandatory minimum sentences reflect the specific gravity of acid attacks.

What did Laxmi v Union of India (2014) decide?

In Laxmi v Union of India, (2014) 4 SCC 427, filed by a 15-year-old acid attack survivor, the Supreme Court gave comprehensive directions: (i) regulation of over-the-counter sale of acid (sale only to persons producing photo ID and address proof, stating purpose, with sellers maintaining registers, no sale to minors, stock declaration to authorities); (ii) minimum compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs to acid attack victims, with Rs. 1 lakh within 15 days and the balance within 2 months; (iii) free treatment at hospitals; (iv) framework for rehabilitation. The Laxmi directions, along with the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, transformed the legal response to acid attacks from inadequate general provisions to a comprehensive framework of specific criminalisation, acid regulation, compensation, and rehabilitation.

How is the sale of acid regulated?

Following Laxmi v Union of India (2014), the sale of acid is regulated primarily through the Poisons Act, 1919 framework and state-level Poisons Rules. Key requirements: (i) over-the-counter sale of acid is restricted; (ii) acid may be sold only to persons producing photo identification and address proof; (iii) the buyer must state the purpose of purchase; (iv) sellers must maintain a register recording all sales; (v) acid may not be sold to minors; (vi) sellers must declare their stock of acid to the sub-divisional magistrate; (vii) educational institutions, hospitals, and other bulk users must keep records and report. Penalties apply for unauthorised sale. Despite these regulations, implementation has been inconsistent, and easy availability of acid remains a concern in preventing attacks.

What compensation are acid attack victims entitled to?

Acid attack victims are entitled to compensation through multiple frameworks. Laxmi v Union of India (2014) established a minimum of Rs. 3 lakhs (Rs. 1 lakh within 15 days, balance within 2 months). The NALSA Compensation Scheme, 2018 provides enhanced amounts based on severity: disfigurement of face (Rs. 7-8 lakhs); injury more than 50% (Rs. 5-8 lakhs); injury less than 50% (Rs. 3-5 lakhs); injury less than 20% (Rs. 3-4 lakhs). Additionally, Section 124(1) BNS provides that the fine imposed on the convict shall be paid to the victim for medical expenses. Parivartan Kendra v Union of India (2016) directed that Rs. 3 lakhs be treated as a minimum with additional compensation based on injury severity. Free medical treatment is mandated under Section 397 BNSS.

Is acid attack recognised as a disability?

Yes. Acid attack victims are recognised as persons with disabilities under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. Acid attack is specifically included in the list of disabilities under the Act. This recognition is significant because it entitles victims to: (i) benefits and support available to disabled persons; (ii) reservations in education; (iii) reservations in government employment; (iv) other disability benefits. The recognition acknowledges the lifelong impact of acid attacks on the victim's physical function, appearance, and ability to lead a normal life. It provides an important basis for ongoing support and reintegration into society, complementing the immediate compensation and treatment framework. This was a significant step in the rehabilitation-focused approach to acid attack victims.

What is the punishment for an unsuccessful acid attack?

Even an unsuccessful acid attack is a serious offence. Section 124(2) BNS specifically criminalises throwing or attempting to throw acid, or attempting to administer acid, with intent to cause harm, even if the harm is not actually caused. Punishment: imprisonment of not less than five years, extendable to seven years, and fine. This closes the gap where an attacker might otherwise escape serious punishment merely because the attack was unsuccessful (the acid missed, was intercepted, or did not cause the intended harm). The mandatory minimum of five years reflects the gravity of the intent and the attempt. This is significant because acid attacks often involve premeditation (the attacker procures and carries acid with intent), and the law recognises that the culpability lies in the attempt, not merely the outcome.

Related Topics on The Legal Bridge

For a fuller picture, read these companion notes on adjacent doctrines and provisions:

• Grievous Hurt under BNS: Sections 114 to 125 that provide the broader framework for hurt offences including Section 124 acid attacks.
• Rape Victim Compensation: the parallel compensation framework under Section 396 BNSS and NALSA Scheme.
• Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016: the statute recognising acid attack victims as disabled persons.
• Section 397 BNSS: the provision mandating free medical treatment for acid attack victims.