SLIC impact | Gurgaon court convicts man who threw acid on minor boy
After Socio-Legal Information Centre intervention, justice finally arrived for a minor male child — who was abducted and attacked with acid in 2016 — after the Gurgaon Court on 17 September, 2018, delivered a judgment convicting the accused for endangering the life of a minor boy.
The accused was convicted under sections 346 (wrongful confinement), 326-A (punishment for acid throwing) , 364 (kidnapping or abducting in order to murder), 307 (attempt to murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in a case FIR No. 1359 registered at Gurgaon Police station.
SLIC impact
The matter was pursued by Socio-Legal Information Centre (SLIC) after Shaheen Malik, who is the coordinator of SLIC’s ‘Campaign Against Acid Attack Initiative’ received a phone call from a media personnel informing her about the acid attack on a 2-and-half-year-old male child.
The child, who received preliminary treatment in Safdarjung Hospital, was later taken to Gurugram’s Medanta Hospital by SLIC activists and lawyers. However, after two days of treatment the hospital authorities refused to give further medical treatment to the acid attack survivor, stating that the male child does not fall under the purview of the State Victim Compensation Scheme due to the gender.
After social activist from SLIC, Shaheen Malik, admitted the acid attack survivor to Medanta hospital, the preliminary medical check-up by the hospital identified that the child’s eye was in danger. However, the hospital authorities refused him of treatment even after SLIC cautioned that there decision is going against Supreme Court’s guidelines.
Since there was no proper Medical Legal Certificate (MLC), the survivor was released from the hospital in two days. SLIC then took the issue up with DCW chief Swati Maliwal, who recognized the issue and admitted the child in Ganga Ram Hospital in New Delhi.
Ganga Ram hospital acted promptly and provided free treatment to the child and saved his eye from damage and also performed multiple surgeries.
SLIC had also approached Women and Child department, district legal authorities and Haryana Chief Minister Manohar Lal Khattar seeking relief for the child. However, the authorities did not respond to any SLIC’s queries.
This led to SLIC challenging the scheme in connection with the case in Punjab and Haryana High Court. SLIC filed a petition in the High Court demanding the State Victim Compensation Scheme should also include male, till the age of 18 years, in the scheme along with complete medical benefits for them. Which led to the landmark judgment included the male child in the definition of 'acid victim' and also directed authorities to pay compensation, medical and surgical treatment and rehabilitation etc.
Interventions and efforts by SLIC secured Rs 6 lakh including compensation and medical reimbursement from various authorities for the survivor.