Supreme Court had previously directed states to ensure a minimum compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs for acid attack victims. However, the Calcutta High Court acknowledged the need for higher compensation due to the severe physical, economic, social, and psychological ramifications.
“A heinous crime such as acid attack on a woman in broad daylight, in a thickly populated area can evoke strong emotions in the society in addition to inflicting grave psychological trauma to the victim.”
“A total ban could have unintended consequences, affecting sectors where acid is responsibly and safely utilized. Therefore, striking a balance between public safety and the legitimate uses of acid for industrial and other regulated purposes is crucial.”
Allahabad High Court said that the Trial Court has erred in scrutinising and analysing the evidence on record and the finding in respect of the guilt of convict is perverse and not according to the law. Therefore, it granted benefit of doubt to the convict on the ground of rule of caution.
Calcutta High Court based its ruling on the well settled principle of law that where oral evidence is convincing, reliable and trustworthy, the motive behind the occurrence loses its relevance.
Karnataka High Court: A Division Bench of B. Veerappa and V. Srishananda, JJ., allowed the appeal in part and confirmed impugned judgment
Bombay High Court: A Division Bench of B.P. Dharmadhikari and Prakash D. Naik, JJ. allowed an appeal by a convict who was
Supreme Court: In the case where the refusal to marriage proposal by a girl resulted into a house trespass by the accused