New Delhi, May 4 Flagging the "alarming increase" in the cases of "barbaric" acid attacks, the Supreme Court on Monday suggested that the Centre consider enhancing the punishment for such offences besides shifting the onus on the accused to prove that he is not guilty.
Under criminal jurisprudence, the onus to prove the guilt beyond a reasonable doubt against the accused lies on the prosecution unless the law provides otherwise.
The apex court directed that pending a suitable amendment, persons who are forcibly made to consume acid or have suffered internal injuries without any outer disfigurement would fall within the ambit of acid attack victims under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said this clarificatory explanation shall be deemed to have been included from the very inception when the 2016 Act came into force.
"It will be appreciated if the ministry concerned formally notifies the deemed amendment," the bench said.
The top court passed the order while hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by acid attack survivor Shaheen Malik who has sought that such victims be categorised as persons with disabilities to ensure access to welfare schemes.
During the hearing on Monday, the CJI observed that the punishment prescribed for acid attacks was not proving to be a deterrent.
"The number of cases has increased. Barbaric and brutal acid attacks have been made," the CJI said, adding, "Don't you think that the punishment should have been harsher?"
The bench said there has been an "alarming increase" in the number of acid attack cases since 2013 which itself is a serious issue of consideration.
It suggested that the government should consider having adequate enhancement of punishment for such offences, besides shifting the onus on the accused to prove that he is not guilty.
The bench also suggested that assets of those convicted in such heinous cases be attached to compensate the victims of acid attacks.
It also highlighted the need to have control over the sale of acid in the market.
The CJI observed that the offence of acid attack should be dealt with extremely harshly.
During the hearing, it was pointed out before the bench that the victims, to whom acid was administered by force, were not included within the expression 'acid attack victims' under the 2016 Act.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the bench that the nodal ministry has already proposed to amend the schedule appended to the 2016 Act.
"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 said.
It posted the matter for hearing after two weeks.
While hearing the plea on March 9, the top court asked all the high courts to fix timelines for trial courts to ensure expeditious conclusion of acid attack cases in the country.
The bench had taken note of the status reports filed by several high courts on pendency and the present status of acid attack cases.
While dealing with Malik's plea, the bench on January 27 batted for "extraordinary" punitive measures for convicts in acid attack cases.
It had asked the Centre to consider amending the law to sternly deal with such cases on the lines of dowry death matters, where the onus of proving innocence lies on the accused.
The top court had also asked all states and Union territories to provide a slew of information, including the year-wise details of the number of acid attack cases and their status in courts besides the rehabilitation measures to support the victims.
The plea sought expansion of the definition of disabled persons under the law to ensure that the victims who suffered life-threatening damages to their internal organs due to forced ingestion of acid get adequate compensation and other reliefs, including medical care.
On December 4 last year, the top court termed tardy trials in acid attack cases as a "mockery of the system" and directed all high courts to submit details of such pending cases across the country within four weeks.
