ACID ATTACK: SHOULD STRICT LIABILITY BE THE NORM?ABSTRACT[footnoteRef:2] [2: Authors name: Debadatta BoseAuthors college: DamodaramSanjivayya National Law University, Visakhapatnam]

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 is arguably the most powerful and well-made piece of legislation to be in force in India. After the 2012 gangrape case that happened in Delhi, mass protests made India realize that it was time to change the penal laws for the protection of women. A committee headed by Honble Justice J. S. Verma submitted a report on sexual offences after receiving almost 80,000 suggestions for changes in law relating to sexual offences[footnoteRef:3]. Based on the recommendations of the committee, the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013 was passed by the parliament on 19th March 2013 after having been an ordinance promulgated by the Honble President of India since 3rd February 2013. One change included in the act was Section 326A relating to acid attacks. This section is gender neutral in nature and this article studies the judicial history of acid attacks and of section 326A, along with providing a critical analysis of the provision in the legislation. Finally, this article shall study and conclude on the application of strict liability on this provision and provide the authors views on the same whether the legislation we have is adequate enough or not, or what addition should have been made by the government on the face of it from the Law Commission Report. [3: Sandeep Joshi, Shinde calls meeting of Chief Secretaries, police chiefs to review crime against women(The Hindu, 25 Dec. 2012) accessed 25-07-2014 on 14:38 UTC]

IntroductionThe term acid attack is a colloquial term for the depiction of the heinous offence that Section 326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 defines:-326A. Whoever causes permanent or partial damage or deformity to, or burns or maims or disfigures or disables, any part or parts of the body of a person or causes grievous hurt by throwing acid on or by administering acid to that person, or by using any other means with the intention of causing or with the knowledge that he is likely to cause such injury or hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and with fine:Provided that such fine shall be just and reasonable to meet the medical expenses of the treatment of the victim:Provided further that any fine imposed under this section shall be paid to the victim.Explanation 1.For the purposes of section 326A and this section, "acid" includes any substance which has acidic or corrosive character or burning nature, that is capable of causing bodily injury leading to scars or disfigurement or temporary or permanent disability.Explanation 2. For the purposes of section 326A and this section, permanent or partial damage or deformity shall not be required to be irreversible.This section has been recently introduced vide the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 and was not there as a statutory provision before 2013. This has happened due to the huge outcry[footnoteRef:4] over the poor position of law relating to women after the gross injustice that happened in the Nirbhayarape case[footnoteRef:5] trial. This amendment to the laws making them more stringent was a welcome move, and India has finally kept up its pace with the world on criminal law, however, leaving ample room for improvement. [4: Gardiner Harris, Clashes Break Out in India at a Protest Over a Rape Case, (The New York Times, 22 Dec. 2009)accessed 15:27 UTC on 17-08-2014] [5: See State Through Reference and ors. v. Ram Singh and ors., 2014 Indlaw DEL 819]

It is pertinent to note that, although the law is new, this crime is anything but a recent one. This crime has gone unprosecuted for decades altogether now with voices of women being silenced forever.Acid attack, is the act of throwing corrosive material on the body of a person with the intent to disfigure, grievously hurt or kill the person. The most common consequence of acid attack is blindness, and often death[footnoteRef:6]. The acid attack victim is not only physically scarred perpetually, but shattered socially and economically the victims are not accepted by society, albeit the perpetrators of the crime are. The victim is left emotionally numb[footnoteRef:7] in most cases the acid not only eats through the skin, but it eats away the soul forever. The acid attacks are a gruesome crime[footnoteRef:8], one treated to be of the most violent category, often equated with rape. The scar that this leaves is a permanent one, and this is a social pathology that can hardly be treated by legislation if the mind-set of the people do not change. Bangladesh tops by number of acid attacks reported[footnoteRef:9], while India did not even have reported acid attack incidents as it was not an offence before 2013. The statistics show a very low mortality rate[footnoteRef:10] for acid attack victims, but most of them are emotionally dead inside eventually when they are rejected by society. But that societal rejection is considered an obstacle only recently, because before 2013, even law disregarded them. In India, an exceptionally hostile environment prevails with regard to crimes against women, and India consistently gives enough reported incidents to shamelessly make it to the top-ten unsafe countries for women[footnoteRef:11], even when the legal provision for acid attack was not present. [6: Hoomah Shah, Brutality by Acid: Utilizing Bangladesh as a Model to Fight Acid Violence in Pakistan, [2009] 26 WIS. INTL L.J. 1172, 1173 (citing Leela Jacinto, Acid Attacks: A Brutal Crime of Passion, Victims of Acid Attacks Battle to Beat the System, ABC News television broadcast 3 Sept., 2003))] [7: Ibid. Page 1174.] [8: R.N.Karmakar, Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, [2003] Academic Publishers. ISBN 81-87504-69-2] [9: L. M. Taylor, Saving Face: Acid Attack Laws After the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, [2000] Ga. Journal Int'l & Comp. Law, 29,395-419] [10: Peter B Olaitan; Bernard C. Jiburum, Chemical injuries from assaults: An increasing trend in a developing country, [2008] Indian Journal Of Plastic Surgery 41 (1): 2023] [11: See report by Trust.org, Thomson Reuters Foundation, Worlds most dangerous countries for women, accessed 16:03 UTC on 17-08-2014]

How well has the judiciary appreciated the heinousness of the crime? Let us see for ourselves with cases and their decisions from various courts around the country, including the Supreme Court of India.Ravinder Singh v. State of HaryanaThis case concerns an acid attack case where upon the victim, an unfortunate girl of 19, was ingested with acid, while on a train, pinning her to the ground. Then when the heinous act was done by all the accused, her gold jhumkas were removed and she was thrown out into the railway tracks in between two railway stations. This was all on the basis of a mere suspicion of an extra-marital affair, without any proof at all. Her statement was recorded by the doctor before she eventually succumbed to her injuries. The facts were narrated by an approver.The charges were filed under 316[footnoteRef:12], 307[footnoteRef:13], 326[footnoteRef:14], 324[footnoteRef:15], 328[footnoteRef:16] and 302[footnoteRef:17] of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Section 34[footnoteRef:18] of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Acid Attack was long suppressed as a legal wrong, even when India was one of the worst affected by the same that is why, till 2013 the offence was put under the title of grievous hurt. However, after 2013, things have changed, as the offence is separate and even victim compensation has been provided for. [12: The Indian Penal Code 1860, s. 316: Causing death of quick unborn child by act amounting to culpable homicide] [13: The Indian Penal Code 1860, s. 307: Attempt to murder] [14: The Indian Penal Code 1860, s. 326: Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means] [15: The Indian Penal Code 1860, s. 324: Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means] [16: The Indian Penal Code 1860, s. 328: Causing hurt by means of poison, etc., with intent to commitan offence] [17: The Indian Penal Code 1860, s. 302: Punishment for Murder] [18: The Indian Penal Code 1860, s. 34: Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention]

The facts peak of a heinous crime on an innocent lady, just on the vague assumption that she had been unfaithful to her husband. The trial court had erred in its findings as there was question of admissibility of evidence. The trial court had ruled out other important evidence against the accused when other independent witness had lacunae in their testimonial in court. Undue influence of the court may have been a cause to cause such a gross injustice overlooking all the evidence that was presented in front of him. The Honble Supreme Court was right in convicting the accused and upholding the interests of justice. The Supreme Court has decided on many facts and circumstances of the case, and has gone into admissibility of evidence for the most part.GulabSahiblal Shaikh v. The State of MaharashtraThis case[footnoteRef:19] concerns an acid attack victim from Maharashtra, who in 1998, was a Muslim woman. She had refused to give-in to the constant demand of money by her brother-in-law. As a consequence, acid was poured on her by him, while she was holding her two-and-a-half year old baby. The gruesome crime cost both her baby and her to lose their eyesight, and she herself suffered burn injuries on her face, left hand, left breast and the torso. Then, she was set on fire, and lit up live for having not succumbed to her brother-in-laws demands. The Court convicted the accused of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and a meagre fine of 1,000/- and 5,000/- under Section 326 for the victim and her son. Though the prosecutrix pleaded, the Judge failed to appreciate the injustice being done to the victims child with the meagre amount of compensation being paid to them for taking away their lives through taking away the childs eyes. The issue of victim compensation has been discussed further in the article. [19: GulabSahiblal Shaikh v. The State of Maharashtra, 1998 Bom CR(Cri)]

MarepallyVenkataSreeNagesh v. State of Andhra PradeshIn this particular case, the facts were that due to an altercation between the husband and wife, the husband attacked the wife. The husband was always dubious of his wifes character and had suspected an extra-marital affair going on with some other person he did not know of. On this mere doubt, one day the husband brutally hit the wife and poured mercuric chloride into her vagina. She was taken to the hospital, but had died of renal failure owing to the mercuric chloride being present throughout the urinary tract. The accused was convicted and charged of murder under sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code in 2002.Balu v. State (represented by the Inspector of police)This case concerns another woman whereby, like in the previous case, the husband suspected his wife of having an illicit relationship with someone of his acquaintance. In an altercation between the two, he, in a fit of rage, poured acid on the woman, who was pregnant at that point of time. The acid caused severe burn injuries which she ultimately succumbed to. The husband was sentenced to life imprisonment with a meagre fine of 2,000/- as in GulabSahiblal Shaikh (supra) under sections 302 and 313[footnoteRef:20] of the Indian Penal Code. [20: The Indian Penal Code 1860, s. 313: Causing miscarriage of a woman without her consent]

Devanand v. The StateThis case[footnoteRef:21] concerns an acid attack victim whose husband threw acid on her because she refused to live with him. The acid caused her permanent disfigurement and she suffered heinous burn injuries, along with the impairment of one eye. This case is important to be noted as because, it shows the variance among the judiciary to punish people for acid attacks when the provision was not there expressly making acid attacks a culpable offence. So, in this case, the judge convicted the accused under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, and not section 326, terming it as an attempt to murder the victim. He was imprisoned for 7 years. [21: Devanand v. The State, 1987 (1) Crimes 314]

Ramesh Dey and ors. v. State of West BengalThis case is an important case decided by the Calcutta High Court[footnoteRef:22] whereby there was a prior attempt to attack the victim, and the accused succeeded in the second attempt. Seeking revenge, the accused and two other people went to the house of the victim and threw acid outside the house where there was a family gathering. Her mother, her aunt, her little son and she were sitting when the acid was poured on them and all sustained injuries. The victim was the worst affected with severe burns on her neck, chest, right ulna, breasts, legs, knees and scalp she was technically dipped in acid. 25% burns were received by her aunt and 11% by her little son. The accused was awarded life imprisonment and had to pay a meagre fine of 5,000/- under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. [22: Ramesh Dey and ors. v. State of West Bengal, 16 May 2007]

Ram Charittar and Anr. etc. v. State of Uttar Pradesh etc.This is a case decided by the Supreme Court of India[footnoteRef:23], whereupon the altercation arose from a land dispute. The deceased, Sushila, was the wife of the accused and had large estates, whose immediate beneficiary was her husband, Ram Charittar. The husband took acid and tried to kill her so he could claim her estates, and tried to kill their two daughters, Bindu and Nandini in the process. The wife died after receiving burn injuries on her neck, chest and face. The medical examination certified that the death was caused due to the extensive and grave burn injuries that were sustained by the victim, whereupon she died out of shock. The accused was sent to life imprisonment along with his partner in crime, KishoriLal under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. However, there was absolutely no compensation awarded to the two daughters who were also the victims. [23: Ram Charittar and Anr. etc. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh etc., AIR 2007 SC 2988]

Awadhesh Roy v. State of JharkhandIn this case decided by the Jharkhand High Court[footnoteRef:24], the victim, a young-aged girl, was standing with her friend at a bus stop. The accused came and poured acid over her head and face because the victim refused to accept his demands of sexual nature. The accused was blackmailing the victim for the same showing her photographs of her, that he possessed. The victim suffered burn injuries over the left eye, neck and chest, and was hospitalized for a considerable amount of time. A case was registered under sections 326, 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, and the accused was chargesheeted against the same after the police duly investigated the matter. The judicial variation is presented herein, that the judge refused to term the act as an act of grievous nature, and was inclined towards section 324 under which the accused was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years. The judge stressed more on the injuries sustained than the nature of the offence, which made him opine this was a case whereupon the injuries were not of a grievous nature and had to brought under section 324[footnoteRef:25]. [24: Awadhesh Roy Vs. State of Jharkhand, 12 Jun. 2006] [25: See also Students of A.P.A.U and Miss Anuradha, Student Vs The Registrar, A.P.A.U, N.Sreeniwasa Reddy, Student and Ors., 1997(1) ALT 547]

State(Delhi Administration) v. Mewa SinghThis case[footnoteRef:26]had to be mentioned in case of acid attack views of the judiciary before the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013 because of the mockery of justice the court had made. In this case, the accused threw acid of the victims face, and caused erythema (redness and swelling of the skin) over a part of her face, though there was no deformity. The court refused to take note of the heinous nature of the crime and got swayed by the literal evidence of what damage had the accused merely caused, as in the case decided by the Jharkhand High Court (supra). Here, the mockery of justice was made in the way of convicting the accused under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and awarding him a fifteen days imprisonment along with a fine of a mere 300/-. [26: State(Delhi Administration) v. Mewa Singh 5(1969) DLT 506]

The judicial inclination has been varied in all cases, and was left to the discretion of the judge to term it as a heinous offence or not. This variation has caused gross injustice to most, whereby there was no express provision providing for prosecution of acid attack.Acid Attack and Strict LiabilityAcid Attack, as a crime is one of the most heinous crime one can do against women, almost equal to that of rape. This crime itself can ruin the life of a woman forever, including making life a living hell for the family members of the innocent girl. This article is about the application of the strict liability principle in acid attack cases, and in my opinion, should be imposed on the accused for the same. This crime is a crime res ipsaloquitorand could not have been done unintentionally, or in good faith. The application of strict liability principle is hence not unwarranted in this aspect.To understand what we mean by the aforesaid, let us first see what crime is. Crime has been defined as:A crime is an unlawful act or default which is an offence against the public and renders the person guilty of the act liable to legal punishment. Halsburys Laws of England

Crimes are wrongs whose sanction is punitive, and is remissible by the Crown, if at all Professor KennyThe crimes are thus offences[footnoteRef:27] against the state which brings about punishment for the offenders for their unlawful act. Thus, what acts and crime and what acts are not crimes is decided largely by the state, and sometimes by the people[footnoteRef:28]. The ingredients of a crime are thus decided by the state and can be classified[footnoteRef:29] based on intent: [27: Offences and crimes, though used interchangeably have subtle differences in their meaning. Although they are similar in concepts, the subtle differences make them merely overlapping concepts, and not same concepts. Society has a set of written rules and regulations to govern human behaviour, in the form of law, penalizing persons for deviating from normal accepted behaviour going against the society. The violation of these rules is a crime and are penalized accordingly. However, mere social norm violation, or more specifically, moral wrongs cannot be the basis for prosecution of an individual, and cannot be punished by a court of law. It is only when an individual having committed an act expressly barred by law that makes him a criminal. Now, for the word offence, differ countries have different approaches. Offence, in its plain and ordinary meaning, is defined by dictionary.reference.com as A transgression of law and morals. Thus, offence is the broad shadow under which a crime falls. The subtle difference lies herein, that an offence is punishable only when it is cognizable, or punishable by the law that has been provided by the statute. Indian law, however, as can be seen in the statutes of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 and other major criminal acts, has used the word crime and offence interchangeably.] [28: One such instance is the fight against Section 377 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860. The case was initially filed by AIDS BhedbavVirodhiAndolan in 1991, and the fight against Section 377 had begun. It had gained momentum again when Naz Foundation filed another PIL in the Delhi High Court in 2001. The Delhi High Court initially ruled Section 377 as unconstitutional, which was later overturned by the Supreme Court, being decided by the benches of Honble Justice G.S. Singhvi and Honble Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya. Immense protests were carried out against the judgment and it received international condemnation from the UN and other foundations acting for equal rights for gay, lesbian and bisexual people. Religious leaders, however, unanimously assented to the judgment. Protests against the law continue till date. One example of law promulgated for the people is the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013 which took place for similar protests involving the Nirbhaya rape incident in Delhi. Mass outcry and protests led to the pressurizing of the government to introduce new laws for safety of women.] [29: Colin Frank Padfield, Law Made Simple, (The English Language Book Society and W.H. Allen London 1978) 319 -320]

1. Absolute crimes (crimes per se, criminal intent immaterial)2. Intentional crimes (criminal intent must be proven to be convicted)The former type of the crime is the one being spoken of here, and this article will analysewhy acid attacks should be put into the first category of crimes instead of the second. Let us now look into the first type of crimes first, and carry on to the next type before concluding what acid attack should fall under.Absolute crimesAbsolute crimes are the ones where the parliament has dispensed with the element of mens rea[footnoteRef:30], and thus making the offences culpable on commission, irrespective of intention. Examples of such offences are adulteration of food[footnoteRef:31], dealing with drugs[footnoteRef:32], and offences relating to motor vehicles[footnoteRef:33]. [30: Mens Rea is the latin for guilty mind, and is one of the necessary element for the constitution of a crime. The common law test is actusreus non facitreum nisi mens sit rea meaning the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty prevails all over the world. Criminal liability is not attached to those without the mental intent, or more specifically in the absence of mental intent, or impaired mental capacity. The traditional common law principle defines mens rea as malice aforethought. The Indian Penal Code does not use this specific obscure Latin term but instead uses words like intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently etc. to include the mental element of the actusreus into the purview of the ingredients of a particular crime. In the context of strict liability principle, this is important because this mental element is completely irrelevant to the commission of the crime.] [31: Food and Drugs Act 1955 (English), and The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954] [32: Dangerous Drugs Act 1965 (English) and in India, The Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940 and The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985] [33: Road Traffic Act 1972 (English) and The Motor Vehicles Act 1988]

Let us take the example of Dangerous Drugs Act, 1965 of England, where Section 5 makes it an offence to be concerned in the management of premises used for the smoking of cannabis resin. Likewise, it disregards the aspect of mens rea associated with it and makes everyone liable whether they had the knowledge[footnoteRef:34] or not. [34: Knowledge and Intention are different in a legal context and has a difference in the way they are used and interpreted. Knowledge refers to the realization of mind when the person knows some fact and is passively realizing the consequences of his acts but the human mind is inactive. It can be called a sub-conscious realization of the mind. Intention, however, is different. Intention refers to the conscious and active state of mind whereby the mental knowledge is used to drive an act towards a particular and specified goal to be reached which the mind sets and perceives before itself. It is what the mind wants to do, and not just knows what it will be.]

Likewise in Sweet v. Parsley[footnoteRef:35](1970), S was a teacher in a school, and had in good faith rented out her premises which were occupied by some tenants. Incidentally, these tenants smoked cannabis. However, S had no knowledge of the offences being committed in her property, nor did she have any means of knowing the same. Inevitably, she was prosecuted under section 5 of the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1965 and held guilty as it was an absolute offence. On appealing to the House of Lords, it was held: [35: Sweet v Parsley [1970] AC 132, [1969] 2 WLR 470, 53 Cr App R 221, [1969] 1 All ER 347Lord Reid laid down the following to ascertain when strict liability would apply:1. Wherever a section is silent as to mens rea there is a presumption that, in order to give effect to the will of Parliament, words importing mens rea must be read into the provision.2. It is a universal principle that if a penal provision is reasonably capable of two interpretations, that interpretation which is most favourable to the accused must be adopted.3. The fact that other sections of the Act expressly require mens rea is not in itself sufficient to justify a decision that a section which is silent as to mens rea creates an absolute offence. It is necessary to go outside the Act and examine all relevant circumstances in order to establish that this must have been the intention of Parliament.]

The offence should not be construed as absolute unless there was a reason to suppose that the Parliament intended to do so.Thus, even though there are reasons to make a crime absolute, there are far more reasons not do so. The heinousness of the offence should not let legislators be swayed by emotions of the public without considering the consequences within foresight from the point of view of an accused.Intentional CrimesThese are the traditional types of crime the world knows of, where the mens rea is an absolutely essential element other than the actusreus[footnoteRef:36]. The crimes are always tested for malice, willingness or knowledge. Without the intention, the perpetrators cannot be held guilty even if otherwise he would have been imprisoned for a significant amount of time. The crime of acid attack in India falls in this category of crimes and it is necessary to prove intention in respect of the acid attack to successfully prosecute an accused under section 326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. [36: Actus Reus translates into guilty act in English. This is the bare essential for a crime, wherefore the concurrence of mens rea completes the criminal necessities. Actus Reus is any act or conduct of commission, omission or possession (not criminal in common law jurisdictions via Regina v. Dugdale, [1853] 1 El. & Bl. 435, 439 where it was ruled that the mere possession of indecent images with the intent to publish them was not a crime as possession did not constitute an act).]

The Conclusion: Should it be a strict liability?Acid Attack cases are one of the most heinous crimes against women. What exactly happens in the crime? An accused, pours acid or the face or any part of the body of a woman, or causes her to drink the acid. Here, acid includes any corrosive substance as mentioned in explanation 1 of section 326A. Now, let us ask ourselves, is there any way such an act could be done without intention? Even though the answer cannot be a unanimous no amongst all readers, it is to be pointed out, that although there might be cases where such a thing is caused without intention, those cases would hardly make up 1 in a million cases.The criminal justice system in India leans more towards leniency than actual administration of justice for the victims in India. The criminal justice system of India runs on Let 99 accused go free, but do not let 1 innocent be convicted, which has had enough negative impact on the mind-sets of the Indian people. It is time India shifted to a system where people should fear law, instead of making a mockery out of it. It is time to enforce the deterrent theory[footnoteRef:37] of criminal punishment instead of a reformative one, for reformation and prevention has never worked out well in India as in other countries. Strict liability principle enforcement would not only enable fast and righteous path to justice, but will also inject cautiousness into the minds of the people handling corrosive material. The control and regulation of acid[footnoteRef:38] has hardly provided a helping hand to all those women who have suffered a loss of their lives without dying, has caused the sparkle in the lives of thousands of girls to die out in just one single day, seeking for justice and a meagre compensation for decades altogether. The victim compensation[footnoteRef:39] and free treatment of acid attack and rape victims[footnoteRef:40] has only been brought into India after the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013. Justice had been vehemently denied to all, and is still flawed. The insertion [37: Deterrent theory relies on deterrence or fear to lower the number of crimes committed in society. This theory advocates the use of force to induce fear into the minds of people against committing an act explicitly barred by law with higher negative sanctions. Deterrence is of two kinds:General deterrence This type of deterrence is for the general public in the society. Whenever an offender commits an illegal act, his negative sanction is a message to the society and people in general to set an example of what will happen if people go against the law. Such type of executions are targeted towards the general public and the best example we can find is Islamic Law or sharia. Death (contd.) penalty and corporal punishment are a way of advocating the deterrent theory to show people what happens as a result of breaking the law.Specific deterrence This type of deterrence is targeted towards the individual and is generally set as such to deter the individual from committing the same crime again. This type of deterrence is provided for smaller crimes like motor vehicle crime, e.g. drinking and driving, crimes like smoking in public places etc. This theory ensures that the offender be punished, not proportional to the act but more than the act so as to offset the pleasure he was deriving out of the act. Such a negative sanction would deter him from committing the same act ever again.] [38: Laxmi v. Union of India, W.P. (Cr.) No(s). 129 of 2006 in the Supreme Court of India] [39: The Criminal Procedure Code 1973, s. 357B] [40: TheCriminal Procedure Code 1973, s. 357C]

of Section 114B[footnoteRef:41] to the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 has not yet been done, which did indeed provide for strict liability as stated by the 226th Law Commission of India Report[footnoteRef:42]. The intention of crime would have been presumed by the court in cases of acid attack henceforth and the offence, in the eyes of law, would have dispensed with the principle of mens rea.However, the government never included the strict liability principle as section 114B of the Indian Evidence Act. The burden of proof in case of rape victims has however, been shifted to the defendants vide section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act. Strict liability in case of acid attacks is highly advocated and should be made the gold-standard for heinous crimes to ensure cautiousness and fear in law. [41: Section 114 B: Presumption as to acid attack-If a person has thrown acid on, or administered acid to, another person the court shall presume that such an act has been done with the intention of causing, or with the knowledge that such an act is likely to cause such hurt or injury as is mentioned in Section 326 A of The Indian Penal Code.] [42: The Law Commission of India, The inclusion of acid attacks as specific offences in The Indian Penal Code and a law for Compensation for victims of crime(Law Com No. 226, 2008) p. 43-44]

BibliographyBooks1. R.N. Karmakar, Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, [2003] Academic Publishers. ISBN 81-87504-69-22. Colin Frank Padfield, Law Made Simple, (The English Language Book Society and W.H. Allen London 1978)Journals1. Hoomah Shah, Brutality by Acid: Utilizing Bangladesh as a Model to Fight Acid Violence in Pakistan, [2009] 26 WIS. INTL L.J. 1172, 11732. Peter B Olaitan; Bernard C. Jiburum, Chemical injuries from assaults: An increasing trend in a developing country, [2008] Indian Journal Of Plastic Surgery 41 (1)3. L. M. Taylor, Saving Face: Acid Attack Laws After the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, [2000] Ga. Journal Int'l & Comp. Law Internet Sources1. Gardiner Harris, Clashes Break Out in India at a Protest Over a Rape Case, (The New York Times, 22 Dec. 2009) < http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/23/world/asia/in-india-demonstrators-and-police-clash-at-protest-over-rape.html?_r=0> accessed 15:27 UTC on 17-08-20142. Report by Trust.org, Thomson Reuters Foundation, Worlds most dangerous countries for women, accessed 16:03 UTC on 17-08-2014