TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………………………………….......2
2. LIST OF
ABBREVIATIONS………………………………………………….................3
3. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.............
……………………………………………….........4
4. LAWS REFERRED…………………………...................................................................4
5. BIBLIOGRAPHY/ WEBLIOGRAPHY............................................................................5
6. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION……………………………………..........................6
7. STATEMENT OF FACTS………………………………....……………….....................8
8. STATEMENT OF ISSUES……………………………………………………..............10
9. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS……......……….………...
……………........................11
10. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED………………………….…………….………………....13
11. PRAYER……………………………………………………………………………......27

Page 2
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Cr.P.C Criminal Procedure Code

IPC Indian Penal Code
Sec. Section
AIR All India Reporter
HC High Court
SC Supreme Court
Hon’ble Honourable
AC Appeal Cases
r/w Read With
Art. Article
SCR Supreme Court Reporters
u/s Under Section
Vs. Versus
ORS Others
& And
S Section

Page 3
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASE LAWS

NO. NAME OF THE CASE

1. Laxmi Vs. Union of India & Ors, 2014 SCC (4) 427
2. State Of Karnataka Vs Joseph Rodrigues, 2006
3. Rajesh Govind Jagesha V. State of Maharashtra, 2000
4. Hazarika V State of Assam, 2018
5. Ravindar Singh Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1975 SC 856
6. Parivartan Kendra Vs. Union of India, 2015
7. Gulab Sahiblal Shaikh Vs. The State of Maharashtra, 1998 Bom CR(Cri).
8. State Of Maharashtra V. Ankur Panwar, 2019
9. Marepally Venkata Sree Nagesh Vs. State Of A.P, 2002 CriLJ 3625
10. Ram Charittar and Anr. etc. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh etc. (04.04.2007 - SC)
11. Mahesh and Parimaladevi Vs. State, Decided on 10/4/2003 by the Madras
High Court.

STATUTES:

 THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,1950.

 INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860.
 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973.

WEBSITES REFERRED:
Page 4
1. www.Ipleaders.com
2. www.Lawbhoomi.com
3. www.indiankanoon.com
4. www.legalserviceindia.com
5. www.advocatekhoj.com
6. www.wikipedia.com

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

Page 5
  The appellant has approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India under Article 132
and 134 of the Constitution of India, 1950.

 Article 132 of The Constitution of India, 1950 reads as hereunder:

Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in appeals from High Courts in certain cases:

(1) An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree or final order of a
High Court in the territory of India, whether in a civil, criminal or other proceeding, if the
High Court certifies under Article 134A that the case involves a substantial question of law
as the interpretation of this Constitution

(2) Where such a certificate is given, any party in the case may appeal to the Supreme Court
on the ground that any such question as aforesaid has been wrongly decided Explanation
For the purposes of this article, the expression final order includes an order declaring an
issue which, if decided in favour of the appellant, would be sufficient for the final disposal of
the case.

 Article 134 of The Constitution of India, 1950 reads as hereunder:

Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in regard to criminal matters

(1) An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, final order or sentence in a
criminal proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India if the High Court has on appeal
reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and sentenced him to death; or has
withdrawn for trial before itself any case from any court subordinate to its authority and has
in such trial convicted the accused person and sentenced him to death; or(c) certifies under
Article 134A that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court: Provided that an
appeal under sub clause (c) shall lie subject to such provisions as may be made in that behalf

Page 6
under clause ( 1 ) of Article 145 and to such conditions as the High Court may establish or
require

(2) Parliament may by law confer on the Supreme Court any further powers to entertain and
hear appeals from any judgment, final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High
Court in the territory of India subject to such conditions and limitations as may be specified
in such law.

Page 7
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

Neeta, an eighteen-year-old girl, belonged to a lower middle-class family. Ramesh, Accused

No.1, maths teacher of Neeta in her school secretly developed emotions for her. Neeta had
always admired him as her teacher.

On Neeta’s 18th birthday Ramesh organised a birthday party for her at his house and gifted her
an expensive watch. Unaware of Ramesh’s feelings, Neeta accepted the same. On 14th
February 2015, Ramesh proposed to Neeta for marriage.

On 20th February, Ramesh approached her parents with the proposal. However, they rejected
his offer and warned him not to contact her anymore. They strongly admonished Neeta and
threatened that they will discontinue her studies. Thereafter she started avoiding Ramesh.

On one occasion Neeta also made it clear to him that she will not go against the wishes of her
parents and asked him not to follow her anymore. Ramesh continued to follow Neeta to her
tuition classes and contacted her personally, on phone and through internet.

Neeta reported the same to her parents. The parents rebuked him for his unwarranted acts.
Enraged with the feeling of rejection, Ramesh went to Mahesh in whom he always confided
and narrated the whole thing.

Mahesh always supported Ramesh, who was residing with him, ever since his parents died in a
road accident in 2000. Mahesh, who had always treated Ramesh as his son, could not bear the
pain of Ramesh. Mahesh suggested Ramesh that he should find Neeta alone and take her to the
temple for marrying her without informing her parents.

In case Neeta would offer any resistance due to parental pressure, Mahesh will threaten her
with a bottle of acid to pressurise her to come with them to the temple. Ramesh, who was
initially reluctant, agreed to the plan on the condition that no harm will be caused to Neeta and
bottle of acid will only be used as a tool to threaten her for compliance to their wishes.

Page 8
On 23rd March, 2015 as per the plan, finding Neeta passing on a lonely road, Ramesh and
Mahesh, who were waiting for Neeta, got out of the car. Ramesh approached Neeta and asked
her to accompany him to the temple so that they can get married. On Neeta’s refusal, Mahesh
carrying the bottle of acid, threatened Neeta. Ramesh started dragging her into the car. Neeta
started shouting loudly. To teach a lesson to Neeta, Mahesh opened the bottle and threw the
acid on her face and then both Mahesh and Ramesh fled away in the car belonging to and
driven by Mahesh leaving the girl in immense pain.

The girl was taken to the hospital by some passer-by. The doctor immediately conducted the
surgeries and opined that the injuries were grievous.

FIR was lodged. Statement of Neeta was recorded. A case was registered against both the
accused under Sec 326A r/w Sec 34 IPC, 1860 and Ramesh was also charged under Sec
354D, IPC, 1860.

Mahesh absconded and was declared a proclaimed offender while Ramesh was arrested by
police from his home and the bottle of acid and car, used in the crime, were seized from his
possession. After investigation, he was put to trial before the Sessions Court, where he pleaded
not guilty and claimed trial.

Aggrieved by the said judgment of the High Court acquitting the accused, the State filed an
appeal before the Supreme Court on the ground that High Court has failed to take notice of the
fact that common intention was present as Ramesh and Mahesh agreed to the use of bottle of
acid in their plan of abduction. Acid was thrown in furtherance of that common intention. The
State appealed for considering the offence as heinous and to award life imprisonment under Sec
326Ar/w Sec.34 IPC and Section 354D IPC and also to enhance the compensation awarded by
the Sessions Court, to Rs 3.50,000/-(three lakh fifty thousand only),to be paid by the accused to
the victim under Sec. 326A, IPC, 1860, in addition to the compensation to be paid by the State
Government under Sec 357A CrPC. The State also sought permission for addition of charge
under Sec 366 IPC.

Page 9
Page 10
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE NO.1:

WHETHER A-1 HAD COMMITED AN OFFENCE UNDER SEC.326(A) R/W SEC.34 OF

IPC, 1860?

ISSUE NO.2:

WHETHER A-1 HAD COMMITED AN OFFENCE UNDER SEC.354(D) OF IPC, 1860?

ISSUE NO.3:

WHETHER THE HON’BLE COURT HAS THE POWER TO ADD THE CHARGE UNDER
SEC 366 IPC?

ISSUE NO.4:

WHETHER THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION JUSTIFIABLE?

Page 11
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE NO.1:

WHETHER A-1 HAD COMMITED AN OFFENCE UNDER SEC.326(A) R/W SEC.34

OF IPC, 1860?

 It is humbly submitted to this court that Ramesh’s actions in connivance with Mahesh
caused permanent damage, deformity, burns, disability and dis-figuration amounts to
grievous hurt by throwing Acid and as per Sec 326A these actions of Ramesh and
Mahesh are punishable by life imprisonment. It is humbly submitted to this court that
common intention was present between Ramesh and Mahesh from the moment Ramesh
agreed to Mahesh’s plan of using acid to force Neeta to marry him.
 As per Sec 34 IPC – any act done by several persons in furtherance of common
intention makes each person liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by
him alone.

ISSUE NO.2:

WHETHER A-1 HAD COMMITED AN OFFENCE UNDER SEC.354(D) OF IPC, 1860?

 It is submitted that Ramesh may be convicted under Sec 354D as it is a known fact that
Ramesh had been following her, contacting her on phone and internet despite her
resistance, disinterest and warning by her parents – these actions of Ramesh amount to
stalking.

ISSUE NO.3:

WHETHER THE HON’BLE COURT HAS THE POWER TO ADD THE CHARGE
UNDER SEC 366 IPC?

 It is humbly submitted to this court that permission may be granted to add the charge
under Sec 366 IPC against Ramesh. Sec 366 IPC deals with kidnapping, abducting or
inducing women to compel her marriage. As per Sec 366 IPC Ramesh’s plan and

Page 12
 actions clearly had the intention to forcefully marry Neeta against her will with
coercion.

ISSUE NO.4:

WHETHER THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION JUSTIFIABLE?

 The compensation should be sufficient to support the medical treatment of the victim,
however the given compensation of two lacs (2,00,000/-) is not sufficient. Although no
amount of compensation will bring Neeta's life back to as it was before the attack,
however it is her right under Sec 326A to get compensation from Ramesh to meet her
medical expenditure. The appellant submits to this hon'ble court to order the respondent
to three and a half lacs Rupees (3,50,000/-) as compensation to Neeta, immediately for
her medical treatment. The appellant also submits to this hon'ble court to order the state
authorities to pay the compensation to Neeta which she is entitled to under S357A (2)
CrPC.

Page 13
 ARGUMENT ADVANCED

ISSUE NO: 1

WHETHER A-1 HAD COMMITED AN OFFENCE UNDER SEC.326(A) R/W SEC.34

OF IPC, 1860?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the respondent had committed
the offence under Section 326A r/w Sec. 34 of IPC. Section 326 A of IPC says that,

“Whoever causes permanent or partial damage or deformity to, or bums 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.”

It is humbly submitted to this court that Ramesh’s actions in connivance with Mahesh caused
permanent damage, deformity, burns, disability and dis-figuration amounts to grievous hurt by
throwing Acid and as per Sec 326A, these actions of Ramesh and Mahesh are punishable by life
imprisonment.

Acid throwing is an extremely violent crime by which the perpetrator of the crime seeks to
inflict severe physical and mental suffering on his victim. This kind of violence is often
motivated by deep-seated jealousy or feelings of revenge against an innocent woman.
Perpetrators of the crime act cruelly and deliberately. The act of using bottle of acid was a
premeditated act of violence as the perpetrator of the crime carries out the attack by first
obtaining the acid, then carrying it on him and then stalking the victim before executing the act.

Page 14
The damage caused to Neeta has been proven beyond doubt to be of grievous nature which has
ruined her life, career and future for her and her family. Neeta has had to undergo 6 surgeries
and 10-15 more surgeries will need to be conducted, Neeta has lost vision in one eye, Neeta has
permanent scars on the skin of her hands and face. Neeta has suffered physically, emotionally
and mentally beyond repair and the suffering can be beyond measure.

In the given case, Ramesh clearly caused the most severe degree of damage possible and
deserves the maximum punishment in order to set precedent which will deter others from
abusing and ruing lives of women.

Section 34 of IPC says that,

“When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of
all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him
alone.”

Section 34 of the IPC 1860 stipulates that when multiple people commit criminal conduct in
pursuit of a common intention, each of them is accountable for the act in the same way as if it
were committed by him alone. This clause, which establishes ‘joint culpability’ for an act, is an
exception to a fundamental principle of criminal law. The core of joint culpability is the
presence of a common intention in all parties concerned, which leads to the commission of
criminal conduct in pursuit of that common goal.

It is humbly submitted to this court that common intention was present between Ramesh and
Mahesh from the moment Ramesh agreed to Mahesh’s plan of using acid to force Neeta to
marry Ramesh.

The 4 essential elements of an offense are:

I. Mens Rea (Intention)

II. Actus Rea (Conduct)
III. Concurrence
IV. Cause

These are all present in this case.

Page 15
In the given case, when Mahesh suggested to Ramesh the use of Acid in order to intimidate,
threaten and forcefully marry Neeta - Ramesh was fully aware of all the possible and probable
consequences of using acid – of which one happened to be causing grievous hurt or even death
of Neeta. Knowing the possible and probably consequences Ramesh agreed to Mahesh's plan –
this satisfied the test of intention, which was clearly malafide and criminal in this case.

The fact that Ramesh did not resist Mahesh's plan as well as stood as a mute witness to his
action of throwing acid on Neeta clearly show the intention was common and equally malafide.
It can be said with certainty that Ramesh had the intention to inflict bodily harm on the victim
otherwise Ramesh would have disagreed to use of bottle of acid and would have not
accompanied Mahesh to abduct Neeta with the use of bottle containing acid.

Since the conduct of the accused Ramesh whose presence at the scene of the occurrence stands
proven beyond doubt, at the time when Mahesh was throwing acid gives sufficient proof that
both shared common intention and further Ramesh simply watched to the accused Mahesh
throwing acid on Neeta neither tried to intervene or save nor prevented Mahesh from doing it
so it is clearly established that Ramesh had intended to cause injury, disfigurements and
disabilities of the victim.

Page 16
ISSUE NO: 2

WHETHER A-1 HAD COMMITED AN OFFENCE UNDER SEC.354(D) OF IPC, 1860?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the respondent had committed
the offence under Section 354(D) of IPC. Section 354 D of IPC says that,

1. Any man who—

 follows a woman and contacts, or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal
interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman; or
 monitors the use by a woman of the internet, email or any other form of electronic
communication,
commits the offence of stalking;

Provided that such conduct shall not amount to stalking if the man who pursued it proves
that-

(1) it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime and the man accused of
stalking had been entrusted with the responsibility of prevention and detection of crime by
the State; or it was pursued under any law or to comply with any condition or requirement
imposed by any person under any law; or in the particular circumstance, such conduct was
reasonable and justified.

(2) Whoever commits the offence of stalking shall be punished on first conviction with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall
also be liable to fine; and be punished on a second or subsequent conviction, with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also
be liable to fine. Here all the elements of Stalking are present in this present case.

Here, in the given case, Ramesh proposed to Neeta for marriage and Neeta however told him to
speak to her parents. When Ramesh approached Neeta’s parents with the proposal of marriage,
they rejected his offer and warned him not to contact her anymore. Thereafter, Neeta started
avoiding Ramesh and made Ramesh clear that she will not go against her parents’ wishes.

Page 17
Despite such disinterest shown by Neeta and warning by her parents Ramesh started following
Neeta to her tuition classes and even contacted her personally on the phone and through
internet. Here Ramesh tried to foster personal interaction with Neeta against her will. Ramesh 's
actions clearly fulfils the conditions of offence Stalking under Section 354D IPC. The appellant
submits this court to convict Ramesh under S354D IPC and give maximum punishment of three
years to Ramesh.

Page 18
ISSUE NO: 3

WHETHER THE HON’BLE COURT HAS THE POWER TO ADD THE CHARGE
UNDER SEC 366 IPC?

This hon’ble Court has the power to add or alter any charge at any time before judgement is
pronounced under sec 216 CrPC.

Section 216 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 says that,

Court may alter charge:

(1) Any Court may alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced.

(2) Every such alteration or addition shall be read and explained to the accused.

(3) If the alteration or addition to a charge is such that proceeding immediately with the trial
is not likely, in the opinion of the Court, to prejudice the accused in his defence or the
prosecutor in the conduct of the case, the Court may, in its discretion, after such alteration
or addition has been made, proceed with the trial as if the altered or added charge had been
the original charge.

(4) If the alteration or addition is such that proceeding immediately with the trial is likely, in
the opinion of the Court, to prejudice the accused or the prosecutor as aforesaid, the Court
may either direct a new trial or adjourn the trial for such period as may be necessary.

(5) If the offence stated in the altered or added charge is one for the prosecution of which
previous sanction is necessary, the case shall not be proceeded with until such sanction is
obtained, unless sanction has been already obtained for a prosecution on the same facts as
those on which the altered or added charge is founded.

Page 19
It is humbly submitted to this court that permission may be granted to add the charge under Sec
366 IPC against Ramesh. Sec 366 IPC deals with kidnapping, abducting, or inducing women to
compel her marriage. As per Sec 366 IPC Ramesh’s plan and actions clearly had the intention
to forcefully marry Neeta against her will with coercion.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the respondent had committed
the offence under Section 366 of IPC.

Section 366 of IPC says that,

 Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage, etc.—

 Whoever kidnaps or abducts any woman with intent that she may be compelled, or
knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled,
 to marry any person against her will, or
 in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, or
 knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse,
 shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine;
 and whoever, by means of criminal intimidation as defined in this Code or of abuse of
authority or any other method of compulsion, induces any woman to go from any
place with intent that she may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced
or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall be punishable as aforesaid.

In the given case, it is proven beyond doubt that Ramesh wanted to abduct Neeta and marry her
forcefully. On 23th March 2015, Ramesh along with Mahesh executed this plan and found
Neeta alone and attempted an abduction. This clearly proves that the intention to abduct was
very much present. This incident will come under the ambit of Sec 366 as a case of abduction
as Neeta happened to be eighteen years, whereas kidnapping applies to only minors.

This hon’ble court held in the case of Khalil-Ur-Rahman and Hazarika v State of Assam that
once the necessary intention of the accused is established the offence is complete, whether or
not the accused succeeded in effecting his purpose, and whether or not in the event the woman
consented to the marriage or the illicit intercourse.
Page 20
The given situation is strikingly similar to cases cited - though accused did not successfully
abduct Neeta and compel her to marry against her wishes but accused must be charged under
Sec 366 IPC as the intention was clear. The intention of the accused is the basis and the
graveness of an offence under this section. The violation, the intention and the conduct of the
accused determine the offence. The only bear upon the intent which the accused kidnapped or
abducted the woman, and the intent of the accused is the vital question for determining the
case. Intention is a matter of inference from the circumstances of the case and the subsequent
conduct of the accused after abduction has taken place.

Page 21
ISSUE NO: 4

WHETHER THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION JUSTIFIABLE?

It is humbly submitted to this court that the compensation awarded to Neeta by the Sessions
Court should be enhanced as per Sec 357 A of CrPC–

Every State Government in co-ordination with the Central Government shall prepare a
scheme for providing funds for the purpose of compensation to the victim or his dependents
who have suffered loss or injury as a result of the crime and who, require rehabilitation.

1. Whenever a recommendation is made by the Court for compensation, the District Legal
Service Authority or the State Legal Service Authority, as the case may be, shall decide the
quantum of compensation to be awarded under the scheme referred to in sub-section (1)

2. If the trial Court, at the conclusion of the trial, is satisfied, that the compensation awarded
under section 357 is not adequate for such rehabilitation, or where the cases end in acquittal
or discharge and the victim has to be rehabilitated, it may make recommendation for
compensation.

3. Where the offender is not traced or identified, but the victim is identified, and where no
trial takes place, the victim or his dependents may make an application to the State or the
District Legal Services Authority for award of compensation.

4. On receipt of such recommendations or on the application under sub-section (4), the State
or the District Legal Services Authority shall, after due enquiry award adequate
compensation by completing the enquiry within two months.

5. The State or the District Legal Services Authority, as the case may be, to alleviate the
suffering of the victim, may order for immediate first-aid facility or medical benefits to be
made available free of cost on the certificate of the police officer not below the rank of the
officer in charge of the police station or a Magistrate of the area concerned, or any other
interim relief as the appropriate authority deems fit.

Page 22
Compensation provided by the government and fines imposed on the offenders by law are two
of the most important considerations for the victims of acid attacks. Sections 326A and 326B,
along with the punishment of imprisonment, also impose fines. According to the law, a fine
should be appropriate and reasonable in order to cover the victim’s medical expenses. Along
with this, the fine should also be paid directly to the victim in order to save time. Sections 325
and 307 also levy fines on the offender.

As an acid attack is a crime against humanity, there are some provisions that provide for the
payment of compensation to the victim along with the fine recovered from the offender.

Based on Supreme Court directions, the Ministry of Home Affairs directed states-

 To ensure that the victims of acid attacks must receive compensation of at least Rs. 3
lakhs (Rs 1 lakh within 15 days and the rest Rs 2 lakhs within 2 months thereafter) from
their respective state government/ Union Territory.

 To make such provisions which are needed to provide treatment to acid attack victims
for free in any hospital whether it is public or private.

 To set aside 1-2 beds in private hospitals for the treatment of vulnerable acid attack
victims who might get discriminated against by hospitals owing to their background.

 To extend social integration programmes for the victims, which might be supported by
NGOs to meet victims’ rehabilitative needs.

There are other provisions in CrPC too that deal with compensation for the victims of acid
attacks:

 Section 357A of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973 : This Section deals with the
Victim Compensation Scheme. Under this Section, every state government is required
to prepare a scheme to provide funds for compensating the victims or his/ her
dependents who suffered a loss or injury due to the attack on the victim. The scheme
would also provide funds for cases where the victim needs rehabilitation. This scheme
was meant to be operated in cooperation with the Central Government. The Section
further specifies a detailed procedure for determining the amount of compensation
which is to be paid to the victims and which mode of disbursement to be used.

Page 23
  Section 357B of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973 : According to this
Section, the compensation provided by the State Government under section 357A is in
addition to the victim’s fine under Sections 326A, 376AB, 376D, 376DA and 376DB of
the Indian Penal Code.

 Section 357C of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973: This Section deals with
the treatment of victims. All the hospitals either public or private, whether run by the
Central Government, the State Government, local bodies, or any other person, must
immediately provide free first-aid or medical treatment to victims of any offence
covered by Sections 326A, 376, 376A, 376B, 376C, 376D, or 376E of the IPC and must
immediately notify the police officer about such incident.

So, these are some of the provisions that deal with compensation for the victims of acid
attacks.

Even after the compensation is given to the victim, it would never be enough to cover the
damage and let the victim go back to normal life as before. The acid attack worsens the
person’s life and has an impact on their social, economic, and psychological well-being. As the
majority of the acid attacks are aimed at the victim’s faces, the amount of compensation
depends on the concentration of acid present and the time period before the acid is properly
rinsed off with water or neutralised with a neutralising agent. So, in any case, compensation can
never be enough.

The compensation should be sufficient to support the medical treatment of the victim, however
the given compensation of two lakhs (2,00,000/-) is not sufficient as the expenditure occurred is
over six lakhs (6,50,000/-) and further treatment needs to be done which includes 10-15 more
surgeries. The court is requested to enhance the compensation to three lakhs and fifty thousand
(3,50,000/-) along with the compensation which the state needs to pay asper Sec 357A CrPC. it
is clear that Ramesh was guilty of causing grievous hurt by throwing acid on Neeta – the
damage is grave and beyond full repair. Physical, emotional and mental damage aside – there is
a lot of monetary damage which Neeta and her family have suffered because of this attack.
Neeta has already undergone 6 surgeries which have cost the family over six and a half lakh
Rupees (6,50,000/-), the doctors have stated that there will be need for 10-15 more surgeries
and further ongoing treatment. Neeta has also lost her left eye and has permanent scars on her
hands and face. Neeta's father has lost his job because of extended leave for Neeta's treatment.

Page 24
Neeta's father also has 2 younger daughters to support. The damage and distress caused to
Neeta and her family is beyond measure and repair. Although no amount of compensation will
bring Neeta's life back to as it was before the attack, however it is her right under Sec 326A to
get compensation from Ramesh to meet her medical expenditure. The appellant submits to this
hon'ble court to order the respondent to give three and a half lacs Rupees (3,50,000/-) as
compensation to Neeta, immediately for her medical treatment. The appellant also submits to
this hon'ble court to order the state authorities to pay the compensation to Neeta which she is
entitled to under S357A (2) CrPC.

As stated in the judgment by this hon'ble court by hon'ble Justice RM Lodha in the case, Laxmi
Vs. Union of India & others - That the current compensation package of all states and UTs —
ranging between Rs 5,000 and Rs 1.5 lakh — is inadequate to meet costs of treatment and
rehabilitation. The judgment also reiterated that Rs. 1 lakh of the compensation must be paid by
the authorities within 15 days of the attack being reported. The judgment says –

“It cannot be overlooked that acid attack victims need to undergo a series of plastic surgeries
and other corrective treatment. With regard to this, the solicitor general suggested that the
compensation amount to be paid by states to acid attack victims must be enhanced to at least
Rs 3 lakh, The balance of Rs 2 lakh shall be paid by the state or Union Territory concerned
as expeditiously as possible and positively within two months of the incident.”

Keeping this hon'ble court's judgment as reference – we submit that the court may order the
state government to pay compensation to Neeta immediately in addition to the compensation to
be paid by Ramesh under sec 326A IPC.

Page 25
 PRAYER

IN THE LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AND

AUTHORITIES CITED, THE COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT HUMBLY PRAYS THAT
THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT BE PLEASED:

1. To pronounce Ramesh as guilty under Sec 326 r/w Sec 34 and Sec 354D IPC and sentence
him to life imprisonment.

2. To grant permission to add charge under Sec 366 IPC.

3. To enhance the compensation to be paid by the accused under Sec 326A IPC to the victim to
Rupees 3,50,000 /- along with the compensation to be paid by the State Government under Sec
357A CrPC.

AND/OR

PASS ANY ORDER THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE.AND FOR THIS ACT
OF KINDNESS, THE COUNSELS FOR THE APPELLANT AS IN DUTY BOUND
SHALL EVER PRAY

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

DATE:

PLACE:

Page 26