Acid Burns Must Have Lasting Impact to Attract Section 326A IPC

Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News? 

Justice Subhash Vidyarthi of the Allahabad High Court decided Teerathraj v. State of U.P. (2026). The Court set aside the appellant’s conviction under Section 326A IPC (now Section 124(1) BNS) and convicted him under Section 324 IPC (now Section 118(1) BNS) instead. He had already spent more time in prison than the maximum sentence under Section 324 IPC, so the Court ordered his release.

What was the Background of Teerathraj v. State of U.P. (2026) Case? 

• The Sessions Court, Raebareli convicted the appellant under Section 326A IPC for an acid attack on the victim. It sentenced him to:  
  • 10 years of rigorous imprisonment, and 
  • a fine of ₹20,000. 
• According to the prosecution:  
  • The victim suffered corrosive burns on his neck, head, chest, back, wrist and thigh, covering about 35% of his body. 
  • He was referred to the District Hospital for treatment. 
• The appellant appealed his conviction to the Allahabad High Court. 
• Looking at the evidence, the High Court found that:  
  • There was no evidence that the victim received any further treatment. 
  • No expert medical opinion had been obtained on the nature of the injuries or whether they had a lasting impact. 
  • A medical certificate dated 30th March 2017, issued 13 days after the incident, recorded no injury and no visible marks on any part of the victim’s body. 
• The incident happened in 2017, before the BNS came into force on 1st July 2024. The case was therefore decided under the IPC. 

Question before the High Court: 

Does a simple burn injury that heals within 13 days, without visible marks or functional impairment, count as “burns” under Section 326A IPC (now Section 124(1) BNS)?

What were the Court’s Observations? 

On the nature of the injuries: 

• The Court found that the victim’s injuries had healed within 13 days, with no visible marks and no functional impairment. 

On the meaning of “burns” under Section 326A IPC (now Section 124(1) BNS): 

• The provision lists several kinds of injury: permanent damage, partial damage, deformity, burns, maiming, disfigurement, disability or grievous hurt. 
• The Court said the word “burns” is vague. A person can feel a burning sensation of different degrees, and the provision does not say how serious or extensive the burn must be. 
• Applying the principle of ejusdem generis, the Court held that “burns” cannot be read on its own. It must be understood alongside the other injuries listed in the provision. 
• Those other injuries suggest that the injury must be serious enough to alter the body part or gravely affect it for a significant period of time. 
• So the injury must have some lasting impact on the injured body part. 
• A simple burn that heals within 13 days, without visible marks or functional impairment, is not a “burn” within the meaning of Section 326A IPC. 
• Section 124(1) BNS uses the same list of injuries, including the word “burns”, so this reasoning would apply equally to cases under the BNS. 

On the alternative liability of the appellant: 

• After holding that Section 326A IPC was not made out, the Court considered whether the appellant was still liable for causing hurt. 
• The evidence showed that the appellant had poured a corrosive substance on the victim and caused hurt. 
• The Court therefore found that an offence under Section 324 IPC (now Section 118(1) BNS) for voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means was made out. 

Directions issued: 

• The conviction under Section 326A IPC was set aside, and the appellant was convicted under Section 324 IPC. 
• Section 324 IPC carries a maximum punishment of 3 years’ imprisonment, or fine, or both. 
• The appellant had already been in prison for more than 3 years, so:  
  • he was not required to deposit the fine, and 
  • he was to be released if not required in any other case.

What is Section 326A of IPC and Section 124(1) of  BNS? 

About Section 326A IPC: 

• Section 326A deals with voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid, etc. The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 inserted it after the Justice J.S. Verma Committee’s recommendations. 
• Under the provision, a person is liable if they:  
  • cause permanent or partial damage or deformity to any part of a person’s body, or 
  • burn, maim, disfigure or disable any part of the body, or 
  • cause grievous hurt, 
  • by throwing acid on the person, administering acid to them, or using any other means, 
  • with the intention of causing such injury or hurt, or the knowledge that it is likely to be caused. 

About Section 124(1) BNS: 

• Section 124(1) BNS replaces Section 326A IPC and keeps the same ingredients. 
• It adds one more consequence: causing a person to be in a permanent vegetative state. 
• Section 124(2) BNS covers throwing or attempting to throw acid. It replaces Section 326B IPC and carries 5 to 7 years’ imprisonment and fine. 
• Punishment (same under both provisions): 

Imprisonment of either description for at least 10 years, which may extend to imprisonment for life, and fine. 

• The fine must be just and reasonable to cover the victim’s medical expenses. 
• Any fine imposed must be paid to the victim. 

Key Features: 

• Acid includes any substance that is acidic, corrosive or burning in nature and can cause bodily injury leading to scars, disfigurement, or temporary or permanent disability. 
• Permanent or partial damage or deformity need not be irreversible. 
• The BNS keeps both of these Explanations. 
• It is a cognizable, non-bailable and non-compoundable offence, triable by the Court of Session.

What is Section 324 of IPC and Section 118(1) of BNS? 

About Section 324 IPC: 

• Section 324 punishes voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means. 
• It applies where hurt is caused (other than in cases covered by Section 334 IPC, grave and sudden provocation) by means of:  
  • any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, 
  • any instrument that, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, 
  • fire or any heated substance, 
  • any poison or corrosive substance, 
  • any explosive substance, 
  • any substance that is harmful to inhale, swallow or receive into the blood, or 
  • any animal. 
• Punishment: Imprisonment of either description for up to 3 years, or fine, or both. No upper limit on the fine is specified. 

About Section 118(1) BNS: 

• Section 118(1) BNS replaces Section 324 IPC and keeps the same list of dangerous weapons and means. 
• The exception now refers to Section 122(1) BNS (hurt on grave and sudden provocation), which replaces Section 334 IPC. 
• Punishment: Imprisonment of either description for up to 3 years, or fine up to ₹20,000, or both. 
• Section 118(2) BNS covers grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means. It replaces Section 326 IPC.