Old-Age and gaps in date of offence committed is essential for prosecution to lower the punishment Amaresh Patel LANDMARK JUDGMENT Wed, May 29, 2019, at ,01:24 PM Title of the Case – Old-Age and gaps in date of offence committed is essential for prosecution Name of the case – Omanakittan v. The State of Kerala, C.A. No. 873 of 2019 (@SLP (Crl.) No. 6293/2018) Date of Judgment – 09th May, 2019 Judges: Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari Subject and sections involved – Section 326A and 326B of Indian Penal Code Issue: Whether higher punishment will be awarded to the accused under section 326A and 326 B IPC who has already been established guilty under section 326 IPC Fact of the Case: Accused Appellant was found guilty of offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year together with fine of INR 5,000 and default stipulation. Further, the victim was so severally injured that he remained hospitalised for more than 50 days. The legislature having taken note of the gravity of such an offence has, by way of Act No. 13 of 2013, inserted Section 326A and 326B IPC providing higher punishment with minimum imprisonment for the offences of voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid and voluntarily throwing or attempting to throw acid. Ratio of the case - It needs hardly any emphasis that the act of causing grievous hurt by use of acid, by its very nature, is a gruesome and horrendous one, which, apart from causing severe bodily pain, leaves the scars and untold permanent miseries for the victim. The legislature having taken note of the gravity of such an offence has, by way of Act No. 13 of 2013, inserted Sections 326A and 326B IPC, providing higher punishment with minimum imprisonment for the offences of voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid and voluntarily throwing or attempting to throw acid. The present one being a matter relating to the offence committed in the year 1997, we need not elaborate on the provisions now inserted, but, looking to the gravity of offence, the punishment as awarded in this matter prima facie appears to be rather inadequate. It was for this reason that, while entertaining the matter, this Court had issued notice to examine the question if the punishment deserves to be enhanced. However, the division bench of Supreme Court noted that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly the facts that the offence was committed in the year 1997 and the accused-appellant is now said to be 63 years of age, we would refrain from enhancing the punishment and would prefer leaving the matter at that only.