<p>New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday expressed serious concern over the rising number of acid attacks, describing them as “barbaric” and “brutal”, and suggested that the Centre should consider stricter punishments, including shifting the burden of proof onto the accused.</p><p>A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that the existing punishment was not proving to be a deterrent, noting an “alarming increase” in such cases since 2013. </p><p>“Don't you think that the punishment should have been harsher?” the bench asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta during the hearing of a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by acid attack survivor Shaheen Malik. </p>.NCW to create national acid attack case registry with real time dashboards to track progress of FIRs.<p>The court noted even after the insertion of Section 326B in the IPC in 2013, which provided for minimum five and maximum seven years of imprisonment, there had been no deterrent effect on criminals. Within a period of 10 years, rather, there had been an "alarming increase" in the number and brutality of acid-attack cases, it said.</p><p>The plea, which sought to categorise acid attack victims as persons with disabilities to enable them to access welfare schemes, was argued by senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi.</p><p>Under the current criminal jurisprudence, the onus to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt lies on the prosecution. </p><p>The court suggested that the government examine the possibility of reversing this onus in acid attack cases, besides attaching the assets of convicts to compensate victims. It also stressed the need for stricter regulation on the sale of acid in the open market.</p><p>The bench further directed that, pending formal amendment, victims who are forcibly made to consume acid or suffer internal injuries—even without external disfigurement—would be included within the definition of acid attack victims under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016. </p><p>This clarification will be deemed to have been part of the Act from its inception in 2016. </p><p>The court said it would appreciate if the concerned ministry formally notifies this deemed amendment.</p><p>Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the bench that the nodal ministry has already proposed changes to the schedule of the 2016 Act.</p><p>“Pending suitable amendment…it is directed that for all intents and purposes, especially to give effect to the 2016 Act, acid attack victims shall also include the victims to whom acid has been administered and shall include those who have suffered internal injuries even if there is no outer disfigurement,” the bench ordered.</p><p>The court scheduled the matter for further hearing after two weeks.</p><p>On March 9, the Supreme Court had asked all high courts to set timelines for trial courts to ensure speedy disposal of acid attack cases across the country.</p>
<p>New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday expressed serious concern over the rising number of acid attacks, describing them as “barbaric” and “brutal”, and suggested that the Centre should consider stricter punishments, including shifting the burden of proof onto the accused.</p><p>A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that the existing punishment was not proving to be a deterrent, noting an “alarming increase” in such cases since 2013. </p><p>“Don't you think that the punishment should have been harsher?” the bench asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta during the hearing of a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by acid attack survivor Shaheen Malik. </p>.NCW to create national acid attack case registry with real time dashboards to track progress of FIRs.<p>The court noted even after the insertion of Section 326B in the IPC in 2013, which provided for minimum five and maximum seven years of imprisonment, there had been no deterrent effect on criminals. Within a period of 10 years, rather, there had been an "alarming increase" in the number and brutality of acid-attack cases, it said.</p><p>The plea, which sought to categorise acid attack victims as persons with disabilities to enable them to access welfare schemes, was argued by senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi.</p><p>Under the current criminal jurisprudence, the onus to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt lies on the prosecution. </p><p>The court suggested that the government examine the possibility of reversing this onus in acid attack cases, besides attaching the assets of convicts to compensate victims. It also stressed the need for stricter regulation on the sale of acid in the open market.</p><p>The bench further directed that, pending formal amendment, victims who are forcibly made to consume acid or suffer internal injuries—even without external disfigurement—would be included within the definition of acid attack victims under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016. </p><p>This clarification will be deemed to have been part of the Act from its inception in 2016. </p><p>The court said it would appreciate if the concerned ministry formally notifies this deemed amendment.</p><p>Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the bench that the nodal ministry has already proposed changes to the schedule of the 2016 Act.</p><p>“Pending suitable amendment…it is directed that for all intents and purposes, especially to give effect to the 2016 Act, acid attack victims shall also include the victims to whom acid has been administered and shall include those who have suffered internal injuries even if there is no outer disfigurement,” the bench ordered.</p><p>The court scheduled the matter for further hearing after two weeks.</p><p>On March 9, the Supreme Court had asked all high courts to set timelines for trial courts to ensure speedy disposal of acid attack cases across the country.</p>
