Recently, the Uttarakhand High Court upheld the life sentence of an individual who perpetrated an acid attack on his elder brother’s family, leading to one fatality and multiple injuries. The court described the attack as “cruel and gruesome,” emphasizing the defendant’s lack of mercy even towards young children.
Justices Ravindra Maithani and Siddhartha Sah reviewed an appeal submitted by Raghunath Singh, who was contesting the life imprisonment sentence handed down by the trial court in July 2022.
The court noted that witnesses consistently reported that Singh, while intoxicated, engaged in a verbal altercation with the complainant. Following the confrontation, he retrieved a container filled with acid from his house and proceeded to douse the complainant and his family with it. The evidence indicated that even minor children were not spared from the acid burns, which resulted in severe injuries.
The ruling stated that minor discrepancies in witness accounts did not undermine the prosecution’s case concerning the acid attack or the resulting injuries. The court reiterated that any shortcomings in the investigation did not invalidate the prosecution’s claims.
The prosecution outlined that a personal dispute arose between Singh and his brother, Sher Singh, around 6 PM on September 10, 2018. It was alleged that after a heated exchange, Singh, allegedly under the influence of alcohol, retrieved acid from his home and threw it at Sher Singh and his family, causing serious burn injuries.
An FIR was filed the following day, and medical reports confirmed that Sher Singh and his relatives suffered corrosive burns. One victim, Jaya Devi, endured life-threatening injuries and was hospitalized for nearly two months before passing away in November 2018.
Singh was subsequently arrested, leading to his conviction for acid attack and murder in July 2022. Dissatisfied with the verdict, he appealed to the Uttarakhand High Court.
During the proceedings, advocate Mohd Matlub, representing Singh as amicus curiae, contended that the investigating officer had omitted critical information, and the prosecution had not adequately accounted for the injuries sustained by Singh. He argued that the victim’s prolonged treatment and subsequent death in Delhi did not constitute murder under the law.
Conversely, deputy advocate general Manisha Rana Singh presented the prosecution’s argument, asserting that the acid attack inflicted severe injuries on Sher Singh and his family. She highlighted the robust medical evidence confirming that Singh was responsible for the attack and emphasized the consistency of witness testimonies, particularly those of the injured parties.
The court concluded that Singh’s actions demonstrated a clear intention to inflict lethal harm and characterized his behavior as particularly brutal. Regarding the delay in filing the FIR, the court noted that the victims were receiving medical care, which rendered the delay inconsequential.
After considering the arguments from both sides, the court determined that the trial court’s July 2022 ruling warranted no changes, leading to the dismissal of Singh’s appeal.
Richa Sahay serves as a Legal Correspondent for The Indian Express, where she specializes in clarifying the complexities of the Indian legal system. With a postgraduate degree in law, she applies her advanced knowledge to bridge the gap between complex court decisions and public comprehension, keeping readers informed about the evolving legal landscape.
Her expertise includes:
- Advanced Legal Education: Richa’s academic background allows her to interpret intricate laws and constitutional details, providing context-rich analyses on how legal changes affect citizens.
- Specialized Coverage: She focuses on judicial updates, legal simplification, and monitoring legislative changes that impact Indian society.
