In a landmark ruling, a Saket court has convicted an estranged husband for an attempted acid attack, establishing that actual injury is not a prerequisite for conviction under Section 326B of the Indian Penal Code. The victim narrowly escaped disfigurement by shutting her gate just in time as her husband attempted to throw a corrosive liquid at her. Forensic examination confirmed the liquid contained sulphuric and hydrochloric acid, and the court found the husband's defense of being drugged unsubstantiated. This judgment underscores the severity of acid attack attempts, clarifying that the intent and the act itself are sufficient for criminal liability, even if the victim is not physically harmed.

In a landmark ruling, a Saket court has convicted an estranged husband for an attempted acid attack, establishing that actual injury is not a prerequisite for conviction under Section 326B of the Indian Penal Code. The victim narrowly escaped disfigurement by shutting her gate just in time as her husband attempted to throw a corrosive liquid at her. Forensic examination confirmed the liquid contained sulphuric and hydrochloric acid, and the court found the husband's defense of being drugged unsubstantiated. This judgment underscores the severity of acid attack attempts, clarifying that the intent and the act itself are sufficient for criminal liability, even if the victim is not physically harmed.

In a landmark ruling, a Saket court has convicted an estranged husband for an attempted acid attack, establishing that actual injury is not a prerequisite for conviction under Section 326B of the Indian Penal Code. The victim narrowly escaped disfigurement by shutting her gate just in time as her husband attempted to throw a corrosive liquid at her. Forensic examination confirmed the liquid contained sulphuric and hydrochloric acid, and the court found the husband's defense of being drugged unsubstantiated. This judgment underscores the severity of acid attack attempts, clarifying that the intent and the act itself are sufficient for criminal liability, even if the victim is not physically harmed.

A woman slammed shut her front gate just in time, stopping acid from reaching her face. Four years later, a Saket court has held that the few seconds that saved her from disfigurement do not lessen the gravity of the crime. Convicting her estranged husband Sanoj Yadav for attempting to throw acid at her, the court stressed that under Section 326B of the IPC, an actual injury is not necessary for a conviction.

“The fact of injury, completed injury, actual irreversible damage is not required,” Additional Sessions Judge Hargurvarinder Singh Jaggi said in the judgment. “What is to be proved is the sufficiency of the factum of attempt or the act itself.”

The case arose from an incident on August 4, 2022, at the woman’s parental home in Sangam Vihar. Vinita had been living separately from Yadav since June 2020, along with their two daughters, following what the judgment records as prolonged matrimonial discord, domestic violence and physical abuse.

According to the prosecution, Yadav arrived outside her house in an intoxicated state and began abusing and threatening her. When Vinita came to the gate, he allegedly raised a white plastic bottle containing yellow liquid and attempted to throw it at her. She slammed the gate shut. The liquid fell outside.

The judgment records that she saw smoke, bubbles and foul fumes coming from the spilled liquid. Police arrived soon after and recovered the bottle from Yadav. A forensic examination later established that the liquid contained highly corrosive sulphuric acid and hydrochloric acid.

For the court, the most significant piece of evidence was not just the recovered bottle but the chain connecting the threats to the attempted attack. Vinita had approached the Sangam Vihar police two days before the incident with a written complaint alleging that Yadav had repeatedly threatened to throw acid on her face.

The court found her testimony consistent and corroborated by her mother, brother and daughter. It also rejected Yadav’s defence that he had been drugged after being served tea at Vinita’s home and had subsequently been framed.

The judge noted that Yadav produced no medical record, blood or urine analysis or expert evidence to substantiate the claim.

The court also rejected the argument that the absence of acid stains on the gate weakened the prosecution case. Since Vinita had shut the gate as Yadav attempted to throw the liquid, the acid falling on the ground was considered consistent with her account.

On the question of the attack itself, the judge made the legal position clear: “The attempt under Section 326B IPC is complete.” The court relied on the principle that Section 326B criminalises the attempt to throw or administer acid with the intention of causing disfigurement or other specified harm, irrespective of whether the intended injury is ultimately caused.

The judgment described acid attacks in stark terms, saying their objective is not merely physical pain but a calculated, malicious attempt to destroy the victim’s identity, permanently disfigure their appearance and subject them to lasting physical and psychological trauma.

Yadav was convicted under Sections 326B and 506 IPC for attempting to throw acid and criminal intimidation. He was remanded to judicial custody after the verdict. The court has scheduled August 25 for a hearing on the question of sentence.

TAGS