Uttarakhand High Court
Raghunath Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand on 6 July, 2026
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
UKHC010193722022
2026:UHC:5492-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Criminal Jail Appeal No. 80 of 2022
Raghunath Singh ...... Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ......Respondent
Presence:
Mr. Mohd. Matlub, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant.
Mrs. Manisha Rana Singh, learned D.A.G. for the State.
Reserved on : 16.06.2026
Delivered on : 06.07.2026
Coram: Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J.
(Per: Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J.)
The instant Criminal Jail Appeal has been preferred by the
appellant aggrieved against the judgment and order dated
27.07.2022/30.07.2022, passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Almora in Sessions Trial No.09 of 2019, State of Uttarakhand
vs. Raghunath Singh by means of which, the accused/appellant has
been convicted under Section 326A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(In short, “IPC“) and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 12 years along with a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in
case of default in payment of fine, to undergo additional six months
imprisonment; appellant has also been convicted under Section 302
IPC and has been sentenced for life imprisonment with a fine of
Rs.15,000/- and in case of default in payment of fine, to undergo
additional six months imprisonment and the appellant has further
been convicted under Section 504 IPC and has been sentenced with
2
six months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in
case of default in payment of a fine, to undergo additional
imprisonment for 15 days. All the sentences have been directed to
run concurrently.
2. The FIR was lodged on 11.09.2018 at Revenue Police area
Dalakot, District Almora with the allegations that on 10.09.2018 at
about 6:00 in the evening, a dispute arose between Raghunath
Singh and Sher Singh due to a personal grudge. There was
exchange of abuses between both the parties.
3. The dispute escalated to a point where Raghunath Singh
under the influence of liquor, brought acid from home and threw
acid on the family members of Sher Singh, injuring members of the
family. Therefore, a request was made that proper action be taken
on the aforesaid matter. The said report was registered as FIR No.
01 of 2018 under Section 326A and Section 504 IPC in revenue
police area Dalakot, District Almora on 11.09.2018 at 5:30 in the
evening.
4. From the record, it is evident that the injured persons,
who had sustained burn injuries from pouring of the acid on them,
namely Smt. Neema Devi wife of Gopal Singh, Smt. Jaya Devi wife of
Diwan Singh, Smt. Mohini Devi wife of Sher Singh, Km. Kiran
daughter of Diwan Singh, Km. Chandani daughter of Diwan Singh
and Sher Singh were initially taken to the District Hospital, Almora
where the medical examination report dated 10.09.2018 states that
it is a case of corrosive burn. (Exhibits A-2 to A-7).
5. It is also relevant to mention that the injured Sher Singh
had sustained corrosive burns on face, chest and neck as is
apparent from the OPD card (Exhibit A-10). Injured Chandini
3
sustained corrosive burns on face and anterior chest; Mohini Devi
sustained corrosive burns on leg and hand; Smt. Kiran sustained
corrosive burns on face and left arm. Since Smt. Neema Devi had
sustained grievous burn injuries, she was referred to Dr. Sushila
Tiwari Government Hospital, Haldwani and the registration card
dated 11.08.2018 records her case as a history of acid / burn
injuries. The registration card further reveals burn injuries over face
and lower limb. The general case history of Smt. Neema Devi further
states superficial deep burn 25 – 35 percent. The history of present
illness further mentions acid-burn over face, left arm, left upper
face, left eye, left hand and right hand. The injuries were grievous in
nature. Another injured Smt. Jaya Devi was also referred to Dr.
Sushila Tiwari Government Hospital which is evident from her
registration card dated 11.09.2018. The registration card further
mentions acid/burn injuries on face and body and case of 60-70
percent superficial deep burn injury. The history of present illness
further mentions acid/burn over face; right side of abdomen both
upper limb and lower limb, superficial deep burn approximately 60
to 70 percent. The medical supplementary report of Jaya Devi dated
11.09.2018 inter alia states injuries were life threatening in nature.
6. Memo dated 11.09.2018 prepared by Revenue Sub
Inspector, Dalakot, District Almora mentions about handing over
one five liters jerkin containing about 1.5 liter liquid acid and one
broken plastic mug sky blue colour by Sher Singh and his wife
Mohini Devi which was sealed on the spot and a memo was
prepared (Exhibit A-31).
7. Information dated 11.09.2018 was sent to the Tehsildar,
Tehsil Almora by the Revenue Sub Inspector Dalakot mentioning
that Gram Pradhan Kunwar Ram intimated about injuring of family
4
members of Sher Singh by Raghunath Singh, who have been taken
to District hospital, Almora by private vehicle – 1.Sher Singh, 2.
Mohini Devi, 3. Jaya Devi, 4. Neema Devi, 5. Kiran, 6. Diwan Singh,
7. Km. Chandini. It further reveals that Raghunath Singh, Jaya
Devi, Neema Devi who are seriously injured have been referred to
Sushila Tiwari Government Hospital, Haldwani and matter is being
inquired into. No party has submitted any report in the matter.
8. Another communication dated 12.09.2018 addressed to
the District Magistrate, Almora by Revenue Sub Inspector, Dalakot
mentions about the incident of acid attack by Raghunath Singh on
Sher Singh and his family members and Sher Singh son of Laxman
Singh having submitted a tehriri report and case has been
registered under Section 326A and Section 504 IPC and the matter
being investigated.
9. In the course of investigation, the Revenue Sub Inspector
prepared the site plan (Exhibit A-35) and also took into possession
the acid soiled mud and plain mud and prepared its memo and
sealed it and also prepared sample seal. The Revenue Sub Inspector
also took into possession the acid burn clothes and plain clothes
and sealed them and prepared sample seal (Exhibit A-40 and 41)
respectively.
10. Death summary was issued by Department of Burn,
Plastic and Maxillofacial Surgery, VMMC & Safdurjung Hospital,
New Delhi with respect to Jaya Devi dated 20.11.2018, which states
about the history of chemical burn due to acid attack at Village
Dashola, Almora. The patient was initially taken to Civil Hospital,
Almora and then referred to Sushila Tiwari Government Hospital,
Haldwani, where she was treated for two months. Patient was
5
received in burn casualty. Her status was critical from the date of
admission. She gradually deteriorated and on 20.11.2018 at 7:00
a.m., she was found unresponsive and CPR was initiated. The
patient could not be revived and she was declared dead on
20.11.2028 at 7:45 a.m. The post-mortem examination report
issued by Dr. Vedant Kulshrestha (Exhibit A-48) dated 20.11.2018
mentions ante-mortem infected epidermal to dermoepidermal
chemical burns present in patches over scalp and face, neck, in
patches over front and back of chest and abdomen, in patches over
both upper limbs excluding palms and in patches over both lower
limbs excluding soles. The total chemical burn injury involves
about 50% of total body surface area. The burnt area shows
erythematous base and hypopigmentation at places and are covered
with yellowish green foul smelling pus and slough at places. Death
is due to septicemic shock as a result of infected ante-
mortem chemical burn injuries, involving about 50% of total body
surface.
11. The record further reveals that accused / appellant
Raghunath Singh was arrested on 30.11.2018 as is evident from
arrest memo dated 30.11.2018 (Exhibit 49) and was locked up in
Police Station Kotwali Almora vide G.D. entry No. 41 dated
30.11.2028.
12. Initially, the case was investigated by Revenue Sub
Inspector (Halka Patwari) of Patti Dalakote, however, later the
investigation was transferred to Regular Police. After completion of
investigation, the Investigating Officer, Devendra Singh Samant,
Sub Inspector, Chowki NTD, Police Station, Almora submitted
charge-sheet against the accused/appellant under Section 302,
326A and Section 504 IPC.
6
13. Case was registered against the accused/appellant as
Sessions Trial No. 9 of 2019, State vs. Raghunath Singh under
Section 302, 326A and 504 IPC. Charges were framed against the
accused/appellant under Section 326A, 302 and 504 IPC on
18.04.2019. Accused/appellant denied the charges and claimed
trial.
14. To prove its case, the prosecution examined 20 witnesses.
PW1 Sher Singh, the injured/informant, narrated the entire incident
in detail and stated that the accused Raghunath Singh is his
younger brother and on 10.09.2018, he was at home. His brother
accused Raghunath Singh’s house is adjacent to his house.
Raghunath Singh was under intoxication of liquor and was abusing
him. At that time, his two daughters-in-law Neema Devi and Jaya
Devi and his wife Mohini Devi were at home and his elder grand-
daughter Kiran, grandson Harish and Chandini were also at home.
Her grand-daughter Sita had run away due to fear while the
accused was abusing. When the daughter-in-law asked him as to
why he is abusing, the accused got more agitated and started
threatening that he will end the entire family and on saying so, the
accused went inside his house from the courtyard and from inside
the house, fetched an acid jerkin and mug and came out in the
courtyard. Two daughters-in-law and children of PW1, Sher Singh,
were with him. The accused opened the jerkin and threw 2-3 mugs
of acid on them. According to PW1, Sher Singh, his daughters-in-
law were in front of him so more acid was sprinkled on them. When
he was intervening, the accused poured acid on him, his wife and
children. From the acid burns, the daughters-in-law felt
unconscious and started shouting. The accused/appellant fled to
his room leaving the jerkin and mug. When this witness was going
with jerkin, wife of the accused came and started snatching the
7
jerkin from him. He snatched the jerkin from her and called Anand
Singh, vehicle owner and on this, the villagers also reached the spot.
The villagers carried all the injured to the road. From the road, all
the injured, he himself, his wife, both daughters-in-law and three
children were brought to the District Hospital, Almora for treatment.
He also brought the jerkin and mug with him to the hospital. All the
injured remained admitted in the hospital and two daughters-in-law
having more burn injuries were referred to Haldwani for higher
medical facility. They were treated in the hospital. Patwari Ji came
to the hospital on 12.09.2018. The witness was in the hospital on
11.09.2018 when Patwari Ji came to the hospital, and he gave him
jerkin and mug. Patwari Ji prepared a memo. Report was written by
other person, who had come with Patwari Ji. The report was read
before PW1, Sher Singh. PW1, Sher Singh, identified his signature
on the report which is marked as Exhibit A-1. The daughter-in-law
Jaya died during treatment in Delhi Hospital. Two sealed bundles
jerkin and mug were taken out from a sealed carton. The witness
proved the carton, jerkin and mug and white clothes which were
marked as material Exhibits 1 – 4 respectively.
15. In his cross-examination, the PW-1 admitted that his
daughters-in-law attacked Raghunath Singh with darati (sickle) on
his face and head when the appellant Raghunath Singh came to
pour acid. He also admitted that the acid jerkin and mug which he
has mentioned were the same jerkin and mug which he had taken to
hospital himself. He denied the suggestion that he had falsely
implicated the accused/appellant Raghunath Singh due to mutual
rivalry.
16. Smt. Mohini Devi was examined as PW-2 and she deposed
that Raghunath Singh is her real dewar (brother-in-law). On
8
10.09.2018 at 5:00 in the evening, Raghunath Singh after having
consumed liquor in the market came to her courtyard in a naked
condition and abused them. In his hand, there was one gallon, mug
and kurpi. There was acid in the gallon. At that time, at home,
besides her, her grand-daughter Kiran, her younger daughter-in-
law, Neema, her grand-son Harish, her daughter-in-law Jaya Devi,
grand-daughter Chandini and her husband were present.
Raghunath came to the courtyard and started telling that he has
brought medicine. Raghunath threw acid on head, hand and back of
all of us. Raghunath also threw acid on her, she got unconscious.
He threw acid as he was under intoxication of liquor. She did not
have any dispute with him. She regained consciousness in the
hospital. All of them were admitted in the hospital. Only two
daughters-in-law were referred to Sushila Tiwari Government
Hospital, Haldwani. Both the daughters-in-law remained admitted
in hospital for 2-21/2 months. Thereafter, both the daughters-in-law
were referred to Delhi. Her elder daughter-in-law Jaya died during
treatment on 20.11.2018 due to burn injuries. We were admitted in
the hospital for three days. Patwari recorded her statement. She
had shown the place of incident to the Patwari. Patwari prepared
the site plan on her pointing out. She had given the mug and gallon
to the Patwari and on seeing the gallon and mug, stated that this is
the same gallon and mug from which Raghunath Singh has thrown
acid on them. She also stated that she was admitted in Almora
Hospital and underwent treatment. In her cross-examination, she
denied the suggestion that her daughters-in-law had hit on the
head, face and hand of Raghunath Singh by daranti (sickle). She
denied the suggestion that her daughters-in-law had attacked
Raghunath Singh with daranti (sickle) and Raghunath Singh got
unconscious and then out of fear, have thrown acid on him.
9
17. Smt. Neema Devi was examined as PW-3. She stated that
her father-in-law is Sher Singh and Raghunath Singh is the brother
of Sher Singh. Both had a dispute pertaining to a rasta (pathway).
At around 5:00 p.m. on 10.09.2018, she was watching television
with her father-in-law, mother-in-law, and sister-in-law. Then
Raghunath Singh, in a drunken state, started abusing them,
whereafter he went inside and brought a jerkin and a mug and
threw a white, water-like liquid upon them, which fell on her face,
leg, and back, and on the whole body of her sister-in-law. Her
father-in-law also received some drops. When it started burning,
they came to know that it was acid. Raghunath Singh then ran
towards his house and also threw acid on himself, from which some
drops fell on the children as well. Thereafter, all of them were taken
to the District Hospital, Almora for treatment. The witness and her
sister-in-law were referred to Sushila Tiwari Hospital, Haldwani,
where they remained under treatment for about two months.
Considering their condition, they were thereafter referred to
Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi. The condition of her sister-in-law,
Jaya Devi, did not improve, and she succumbed to the acid burn
injuries on 20.11.2018. Thereafter, as the condition of the witness
improved, she was brought home. Her treatment is still continuing.
In the Court, a sealed carton was produced and opened
with the permission of the Court. Inside the carton were a broken
jerkin and a mug. The witness identified them as the same jerkin
and mug from which Raghunath Singh had thrown the acid. She
denied the defence suggestion that they had first attacked
Raghunath Singh with a darati (sickle) and that, in self-defence,
after her father-in-law reached the spot, Raghunath Singh had
thrown acid upon them.
10
18. Kumari Kiran was examined as PW-4. She also deposed
that Raghunath Singh had brought a jerkin and a mug containing a
water-like liquid and had thrown the same upon her mother and
aunt. Upon hearing the cries of her mother, she came out of the
room, whereupon acid was also thrown towards them, some of
which fell upon her as well as on the hand and leg of her brother.
She further stated that a large quantity of acid was thrown
upon her mother. Thinking that her mother would die, Raghunath
Singh also poured acid upon himself and thereafter ran away. She
deposed that all of them were taken to the Government Hospital,
Almora, where they received treatment. Considering the serious
condition of her mother and aunt, they were referred to Sushila
Tiwari Hospital, Haldwani, where they remained under treatment for
about two months. As their condition did not improve, they were
subsequently referred to Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, where her
mother, Jaya Devi, succumbed to her acid burn injuries on
20.11.2018. In her cross-examination, she admitted that Raghunath
Singh had become unconscious, but categorically stated that he had
first thrown acid upon them, thereafter poured acid upon himself,
and only then had fallen unconscious.
19. PW-5, Diwan Singh, the husband of the deceased Jaya
Devi, deposed that on 10.09.2018 at 5:00 in the evening, he was
sitting inside his house when Raghunath Singh came to the house
who was intoxicated & was abusing. Raghunath Singh threw acid on
his family members, who were crying loudly and he came out upon
hearing their cries upon which Raghunath Singh fled from their
courtyard to his own courtyard where he lied down and poured acid
on himself. He further stated that his wife, Jaya Devi, succumbed to
her acid burn injuries on 20.11.2018.
11
20. PW-6, Harish Singh, the son of Diwan Singh and Jaya
Devi, also supported the prosecution case. He deposed that
Raghunath Singh arrived in an intoxicated condition, started
abusing the family members, and thereafter threw acid on them. He
stated that they were subsequently taken to the District Hospital,
Almora, where they received treatment. According to him, acid fell
on his leg and back, causing burn injuries. The Court also recorded
observations regarding the burn injury marks present on his
stomach, right leg, and upper body. He further deposed that his
mother later died as a consequence of the burn injuries sustained in
the incident.
In his cross-examination, Harish Singh categorically
denied the suggestion that his mother and aunt had attacked
Raghunath Singh with a darati (sickle). He stated that his
grandfather had struck Raghunath Singh with a khurpi after the
latter had been hurling abuses, whereupon Raghunath Singh fell
unconscious. He further clarified that Raghunath Singh had first
thrown acid on them and only thereafter fallen unconscious.
21. PW-7, Chandni Chamyal, deposed that Raghunath Singh
had thrown acid on her grandmother, mother, aunt, elder brother,
sister, and herself. She stated that her face & chest were burnt by
the acid. The Court observed that the witness, who was present in
Court, still bore burn marks on her face and chest. She further
deposed that all of them were taken to the hospital at Almora, where
they received treatment. Her mother subsequently died in Delhi.
22. PW-8, Heera Singh, the son of the informant Sher Singh,
deposed that on 10.09.2018, when he reached the spot, Sher Singh
informed him that Raghunath Singh had thrown acid.
12
23. PW-9, Dr. Praveen Kumar, who was posted as an
Emergency Medical Officer at the District Hospital, Almora, on
10.09.2018, deposed that before he assumed his duty, the injured
persons were already under treatment. As acid attack patients, all
were treated in emergency & thereafter he admitted them. He
conducted their medical examinations and proved their medical
certificates, which were marked as Exhibits A-2 to A-7. Considering
the serious condition of Neema and Jaya Devi, he referred them to
Haldwani, whereas the remaining injured persons were shifted to
the ward and their treatment continued. He proved the certified
copy of the OPD register, which was marked as Exhibit A-8. He
further proved the bed-head tickets, OPD cards, and discharge slips
of the injured persons, which were marked as Exhibits A-9 to A-20.
He stated that all the injured persons had sustained acid burn
injuries.
24. PW-10, Shailendra Lakda, was posted as an Assistant
Sub-Inspector at the Police Chowki, Safdarjang Hospital, Delhi. He
deposed that he had prepared the Panchayatnama (Inquest Report),
which was proved and marked as Exhibit A-21. He also proved the
documents relating to the dead body of the deceased, Jaya Devi,
which were marked as Exhibits A-22 and A-23. After the completion
of the inquest proceedings and the post-mortem examination, the
dead body was handed over to the family members.
25. PW-11, Vinod Singh, is a formal panch witness of the
Panchayatnama (Inquest Report).
26. PW-12, Dr. Himanshu Saxena, was posted as a Plastic
Surgeon at Sushila Tiwari Medical College, Haldwani, District
Nainital. He deposed that Jaya Devi and Neema Devi were admitted
13
to the hospital on account of acid burn injuries. According to him,
Smt. Jaya Devi had sustained deep acid burns on her hands, legs,
chest, abdomen, and back, covering approximately 70% of her body.
He further deposed that the injuries sustained by Smt. Jaya Devi
were grievous and of such a serious nature as to be sufficient to
cause death. As her condition did not improve despite treatment at
the hospital, she was referred to a higher medical centre on
11.11.2018.
He further deposed that Smt. Neema Devi had also
sustained deep acid burn injuries on her face, neck, chest, back,
both hands, and both legs, and had suffered approximately 30%
burns. Her injuries were likewise serious in nature, and she too was
referred to a higher medical centre on 11.11.2018 for specialized
treatment. The treatment records pertaining to Smt. Neema Devi
were proved by him and marked as Exhibits A-24 and A-25, while
the treatment records relating to Smt. Jaya Devi were proved by him
and marked as Exhibits A-26 and A-27, respectively. He also proved
the supplementary medical reports prepared by him in respect of
Smt. Jaya Devi and Smt. Neema Devi, which were marked as
Exhibits A-28 and A-29, respectively.
27. PW-13 is Kuldeep Joshi, was posted as a Revenue Sub-
Inspector on 10.09.2018. (It needs a special mention that in some
hilly districts of Uttarakhand, the Patwari / Revenue Sub-Inspectors
are vested with police powers.) He was informed by the Gram
Pradhan over the phone on the evening of 10.09.2018 that the
accused had thrown acid on his brother, Sher Singh, and his family
members, all of whom had sustained injuries and had been taken to
the Almora Hospital. Owing to paucity of time, he could not reach
the hospital on that day. However, on the morning of 11.09.2018, he
14
went to the District Hospital, Almora, where Sher Singh and his
family members were admitted in an injured condition. There, he
inquired from the injured persons, whereupon Sher Singh and the
other injured persons informed him that, on 10.09.2018, Raghunath
Singh had quarrelled with them and thrown acid upon them. On
11.09.2018, while at the hospital, the injured Sher Singh narrated
the incident to him and thereafter handed over a jerkin containing
1.5 litres of acid, and a broken sky-blue plastic mug. These articles
were taken into police possession, sealed, and a sample seal was
prepared. He identified his signatures thereon, and the same was
marked as Exhibit A-30. The possession memo prepared by him was
proved and marked as Exhibit A-31. Thereafter, he informed the
District Magistrate, Almora, and the Tehsildar, Almora, about the
incident. The letter addressed to the Tehsildar, Almora was proved
by him and marked as Exhibit A-32, while the letter addressed to
the District Magistrate, Almora was marked as Exhibit A-33. On the
same day, at about 4:00-4:30 p.m., PLV activists Mahendra Singh
Chamyal and Shubham Arya submitted to him a report signed by
the injured Sher Singh at the Tehsildar Office, Almora. On the basis
of the said report, he proceeded to the Headquarters and registered
the First Information Report on the basis of Exhibit A-1. He proved
the FIR prepared by him, which was marked as Exhibit A-34. On
12.09.2018, he visited the spot and prepared the site plan, which
was marked as Exhibit A-35. He further proved the sample seal of
acid-stained mud and plain mud along with its possession memo;
the sample seal of blood-stained mud and plain mud along with its
possession memo; and the sample seal of acid-burnt clothes and
plain clothes along with its possession memo, which were marked as
Exhibits A-36 to A-41 respectively. He also recorded the statements
of the injured Mohini Devi and Sher Singh. He also informed the
15
District Legal Services Authority, Almora on 14.09.2018, and the
said communication was proved by him and marked as Exhibit A-
42. He further deposed that he had submitted a letter to the District
Magistrate, Almora, seeking transfer of the investigation to the
regular police. The said letter was proved by him and marked as
Exhibit A-43. The District Magistrate, Almora, passed an order
transferring the investigation to the regular police, which was
received on 25.09.2018. Pursuant thereto, he handed over all the
case documents and case property to Kotwali, Almora. A sealed
bundle was opened in the Court, from which acid-stained mud was
recovered and marked as Material Exhibit A-5, while plain mud was
marked as Material Exhibit A-6. Similarly, blood-stained mud was
marked as Material Exhibit A-7, paper was marked as Material
Exhibit A-8, and cloth was marked as Material Exhibit A-9. The
acid-burnt clothes were marked as Material Exhibit A-10, the white
cloth was marked as Material Exhibit A-11, the other plain cloth
was marked as Material Exhibit A-12, the stitched white cloth was
marked as Material Exhibit A-13, and the white cloth containing two
bundles was marked as Material Exhibit A-14. The blood-stained
mud was marked as Material Exhibit A-15, the paper was marked
as Material Exhibit A-16, the plain mud was marked as Material
Exhibit A-17, and the other paper was marked as Material Exhibit
A-18. The white cloth in which both the materials had been sealed
was marked as Material Exhibit A-19.
In his cross-examination, he admitted that he had not
sent the jerkin to the FSL. He further admitted that, when he
received the First Information Report from Mahendra Chamyal and
Shubham Arya, Sher Singh was in the hospital.
16
28. PW-14 is Sunder Singh, who deposed that on 10.09.2018,
while he was coming down from his house towards the road, he
heard shouts coming from the house of Sher Singh and Raghunath
Singh. Upon hearing the commotion, he went to their house and
saw that acid had been thrown upon Sher Singh, his wife Mohini
Devi, his daughter-in-law Smt. Jaya Devi, Kiran Devi, and Harish.
All of them were crying and shouting in pain. He also saw
Raghunath Singh lying in the courtyard, and acid had been poured
upon him as well. Thereafter, the family members of Raghunath
Singh arranged a vehicle to take the injured persons to the hospital.
He accompanied Raghunath Singh in the vehicle up to Petshal,
thereafter, he proceeded to Almora in another vehicle.
He further stated that the Patwari took into possession
acid-stained mud and plain mud from the spot, sealed the same,
and prepared a possession memo, which was signed by him. The
Patwari also took into possession blood-stained mud and plain mud,
sealed the same, and prepared a possession memo, which was
likewise signed by him. The Patwari further took into possession the
acid-burnt clothes and plain clothes, sealed them, prepared a
sample seal, and drew up the relevant memo, on which he appended
his signatures.
In his cross-examination, he admitted that he had no
knowledge of what had transpired prior to his arrival at the spot. He
further stated that the houses of Raghunath Singh and Sher Singh
were adjacent to each other. He admitted that Raghunath Singh had
sustained an injury on his head, blood was oozing therefrom, and he
was in an unconscious state. He had not noticed whether the
clothes of Raghunath Singh had been burnt and did not remember
how many articles of clothing had been sealed. He further admitted
17
that, when he was transporting Raghunath Singh in his vehicle,
blood was oozing from his head and he was in an unconscious state.
29. Anand Singh was examined as PW-15. He deposed that he
was the driver of vehicle No. UK01 TA 0287 and that, on the evening
of 10.09.2018, he transported all the injured persons to the District
Hospital, Almora, in his vehicle. Out of them, Jaya Devi and Neema
Devi were in a serious condition and were referred to Haldwani for
further treatment. He further stated that he assisted in seating them
in the ambulance bound for Haldwani.
In his cross-examination, he stated that Sher Singh was
carrying an acid container and a mug in his hand. Upon being
shown Material Exhibit A-2, he identified the container and mug as
the same articles which he had seen in the possession of Sher
Singh.
30. PW-16, Mahendra Singh Chamyal, was a PLV Activist with
the District Legal Services Authority, Almora. He deposed that on
11.09.2018, he, along with another PLV Activist, Shubham Arya,
had gone to the District Hospital, Almora. Upon reaching there, they
came to know that Sher Singh and his family members, who were
victims of an acid attack, had been admitted to the hospital. Both of
them met the victims and interacted with Sher Singh. They informed
him about the legal services available to him, whereupon Sher Singh
handed over to them a written tehrir/report bearing his signatures
for the purpose of registration of the case. After receiving the report,
they proceeded to the Tehsil Headquarters, Almora, and made
inquiries regarding the Revenue Sub-Inspector, Dalakot. After
contacting him at about 4:00 p.m., they submitted the report to the
18
Patwari. He further stated that Exhibit A-1 on record is the same
report which had been handed over to them by Sher Singh.
31. PW-17 is Dr. Rohit Babu, who has been serving as a
doctor at Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi, since the year 2018. He
deposed that, on the morning of 12.11.2018, Smt. Jaya Devi was
admitted to the hospital and was treated by him. According to him,
Smt. Jaya Devi had sustained 50% burn injuries and her condition
was very serious. There was a deficiency of blood in her body, and
the infection had spread throughout her system. Her head, face,
both hands, both legs, chest, back, and right thigh had suffered
burn injuries.
He further deposed that Smt. Jaya Devi remained
admitted in the hospital from 12.11.2018 to 20.11.2018 and, during
the course of treatment, she succumbed on 20.11.2018 due to
sepsis (infection). He stated that the burn injuries had been caused
by acid and that she died as a consequence of the extensive burn
injuries sustained by her.
He proved the Medico-Legal Report of Smt. Jaya Devi,
which was marked as Exhibit A-44. He also proved the death
summary prepared by Dr. Praveen Kumar, identified the signatures
appearing thereon, and the same was marked as Exhibit A-45. The
death report was marked as Exhibit A-46. He further proved the
treatment records of Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi, which were
collectively marked as Exhibit A-47.
In his cross-examination, he stated that, when the victim
was brought for treatment, she was in a condition to speak. Upon
being questioned, she stated that acid had been thrown upon her by
her uncle, though she did not disclose the name of anyone.
19
32. PW-18 is Dr. Vedant Kulshreshth, who conducted the
post-mortem examination on the body of Smt. Jaya Devi. He
deposed that, in his opinion, the cause of death was ante-mortem
50% chemical burn injuries, resulting in septicemic shock due to
infection. He further stated that the injuries were sufficient to cause
death in the ordinary course of nature. He proved the post-mortem
report prepared by him, which was marked as Exhibit A-48.
33. PW-19 is Constable Dinesh Singh Rawat, who deposed
that on 03.01.2019, he was posted at Kotwali, Almora, as a
Constable. On the orders of the Court, he proceeded to the Forensic
Science Laboratory, Rudrapur, along with four sealed bundles. He
deposited the said bundles at the FSL, Rudrapur on 04.01.2019 and
obtained a receipt in acknowledgment thereof.
34. PW-20 is S.I. Devendra Singh Samant, who deposed that
he took over the investigation of the case on 26.10.2018. On
30.11.2018, he recorded the statements of the victims, namely
Neema Devi and Diwan Singh, as well as that of the accused,
Raghunath Singh. On the same day, he arrested Raghunath Singh
and prepared the arrest memo, which was marked as Exhibit A-49.
He further stated that information regarding the arrest was
furnished to the wife of the accused, Smt. Tara Devi, at the spot,
and the information memo was marked as Exhibit A-50. He proved
the dispatch G.D., which was marked as Exhibit A-51, and the G.D.
Entry No. 41 relating to the entry of the accused at Kotwali, Almora,
which was marked as Exhibit A-52. He further deposed that he had
sent the case property to the FSL, Rudrapur, under a forwarding
letter, on which the FSL, Rudrapur acknowledged receipt. The said
forwarding letter was marked as Exhibit A-53.
20
He further stated that on 16.11.2019, he recorded the
statement of Dr. Praveen Kumar. He also deposed that on
04.02.2019, he received the post-mortem report and the inquest
report relating to Smt. Jaya Devi.
During the course of investigation, he recorded the
statements of Dr. Vedant Kulshreshth and Dr. Praveen Kumar.
Upon receipt of the post-mortem report, he added Section 302 of the
IPC to the case against the accused. During the investigation, he
also recorded the statements of Gopal Singh, Diwan Singh Bahadur,
Ram Vinod Singh, Kiran Chamyal, Sunder Singh, and the previous
Investigating Officer, Kuldeep Joshi, etc.
He further deposed that he received the supplementary
medical reports of Jaya Devi and Neema Devi from Sushila Tiwari
Hospital and recorded the statement of Dr. Himanshu. Thereafter,
upon completion of the investigation, he submitted a charge-sheet
dated 20.02.2019 against the accused under Sections 302, 326-A,
and 504 of the IPC, which was marked as Exhibit A-54.
He further stated that, after submission of the charge-
sheet, he received the FSL report from FSL, Rudrapur, which was
thereafter filed before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Almora. The FSL report, signed by the Deputy Director, was marked
as Exhibit A-55 and is admissible in evidence under Section 293 of
the Cr.P.C.
In his cross-examination, he admitted that appellant had
injuries on his face & head and also had acid burn injuries. In his
investigation, he had obtained information about acid being found
in possession of accused / appellant for use in extraction of resins.
21
35. Lastly, the statement of the accused/appellant was
recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. He denied the statements
made by the prosecution witnesses and contended that the same
were false. The other incriminating evidence and material put to him
were either denied by him or he failed to offer any satisfactory
explanation in respect thereof.
He denied having any knowledge regarding the death of
Jaya Devi and stated that he did not know how she had died,
asserting that she had been suffering from illness. He further stated
that his own body had sustained burn injuries and alleged that Sher
Singh had attacked him with a darati (sickle) and had thrown acid
upon him. According to the accused, Sher Singh had also thrown
acid upon his own family members in order to falsely implicate him
in the present case.
36. The accused/appellant examined Dr. Lalit Mohan as DW-
1. He deposed that on 09.07.2021, he was posted as a Medical
Officer in the District Jail when the accused, Raghunath Singh, was
brought to the jail in judicial custody. He further stated that certain
medical documents relating to Raghunath Singh had been
submitted before him, which he had brought to the Court. Among
those documents was the discharge summary of Sushila Tiwari
Hospital, Haldwani. According to the said medical records, there
was a mention of injuries sustained by Raghunath Singh on his
head and face by a sharp-edged weapon. The records also reflected
that he had sustained acid burn injuries.
37. Smt. Tara Devi, wife of Raghunath Singh, was examined
as DW-2. She deposed that the incident occurred on 10.09.2018.
Her husband had come to Almora, and they had gone to cut grass.
22
On that day, at around 4:30 to 5:00 p.m., when her husband had
come home, Mohini Devi and her family members attacked him. By
that time, she had also reached home carrying grass. Tara Devi and
Neema Devi attacked Raghunath Singh on his face and other parts
of his body with a Darati (sickle). As a result of the attack,
Raghunath Singh sustained injuries, blood started oozing out, and
he fell unconscious. When she went to save him, Diwan Singh, son
of Sher Singh, caught hold of her. Thereafter, Sher Singh, thinking
that Raghunath Singh had died, brought a jerkin and a mug from
inside. She thought that Sher Singh was throwing water. Sher Singh
then threw something like water from the mug upon the daughters-
in-law and children. Her husband, Raghunath Singh, had already
become unconscious, and thereafter the entire family went to
Almora, taking the jerkin and the mug with them. She further
deposed that they had thought that Raghunath Singh had died, but
somebody came there and informed them that he was still alive and
should be taken to hospital. Thereafter, she and her son, with great
difficulty, took him to Base Hospital, Almora. At Base Hospital,
Almora, stitches were applied to his head, and the doctors informed
them that he had sustained multiple injuries and should be taken to
a higher medical centre, namely Sushila Tiwari Hospital, Haldwani.
He remained there for one day and one night, after which he was
referred to a higher centre in Delhi. She further stated that since
they were occupied with the treatment of her husband, they could
not immediately lodge a report. Thereafter, when they approached
the Patwari to lodge a report, he told them to first ensure that
Raghunath Singh recovers and then come along with him. In her
cross-examination, DW-2 admitted that on that day her husband
had consumed liquor. She admitted that due to material that was
23
kept in the jerkin, Sher Singh and his family members had gone to
the hospital for treatment.
38. Doctor Himanshu Saxena, Professor Plastic Surgery in
Sushila Tiwari Hospital, Haldwani was examined as DW-3 through
V.C. He deposed that patient Raghunath Singh was admitted in the
hospital on 11.09.2018 at 9:25 a.m. There was one injury on his
forehead measuring 10 x 1cm. There was injury on left cheek, which
was stitched. There was swelling on his left eye and blackness,
multiple chemical burns on right eye and at 4 or 5 places on
stomach and back and left hand. The patient was not fully
conscious and blood had come from nose, ear and mouth and had
been referred to Base Hospital, Almora. The injuries sustained by
the patient Raghunath Singh was from sharp edged weapon and the
chemical burns were probably from acid. The witness proved
documents 73A/3, which was marked as Exhibit B1.
39. Dr. Anupam Joshi was examined as DW-4. He deposed
that on 10.09.2018, he was posted at Base Hospital, Almora, and
patient Raghunath Singh was brought to him by Tara Devi. The
patient had sustained multiple injuries. Since orthopaedic and
neurosurgical facilities, as well as CT scan facilities, were not
available at the hospital, he referred the patient to a higher centre.
He had brought the Medico-Legal Register, which he proved as
Exhibit B-2.
In his cross-examination, he admitted that there were no
burn injuries on the front portion of the patient’s body. He further
admitted that the patient had not informed him about the manner
in which he had sustained the injuries and, therefore, he could not
state how the injuries were caused. Since the patient did not
24
disclose the circumstances relating to the injuries, the same were
not recorded in the Medico-Legal Register. Smt. Tara Devi had
informed him that the patient had sustained injuries, but she did
not disclose who had caused those injuries.
40. Thereafter, the matter was finally heard by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Almora, who, vide judgment and order
dated 27.07.2022, concluded that the prosecution had been able to
prove the charges against the accused/appellant beyond reasonable
doubt. Accordingly, the accused/appellant was convicted under
Sections 326A, 302 and 504 of the IPC by the impugned judgment
and order dated 27.07.2022/30.07.2022.
41. Assailing the aforesaid judgment and order dated
27.07.2022/30.07.2022, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant
submitted that the FIR was lodged belatedly, after due deliberation,
and as an afterthought. It was contended that since the FIR itself is
delayed, the prosecution case emanating therefrom becomes
doubtful at the very inception.
42. Learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant would further
submit that there are material inconsistencies between the version
narrated in the FIR and the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses.
43. Learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant would further
submit that it is an admitted case that an altercation had taken
place between the parties. He further submitted that the initial
medical examination reports prepared at District Hospital, Almora
on 10.09.2018 do not contain any reference whatsoever to an acid
attack. Learned counsel further contended that Jaya Devi died after
two months and eleven days from the date of the incident due to
25
septicemia and, therefore, the conviction of the appellant under
Section 302 of the IPC cannot be sustained.
He further submitted that the initial medical reports
merely refer to corrosive burns, which, at best, may indicate
chemical burns. Since there is no specific mention of burns caused
by acid, the prosecution case becomes doubtful from its very
inception.
He further submitted that the doctor at Almora, in his
medical examination report, did not mention any acid attack.
Referring to the deposition of PW-10, the Investigating Officer,
learned counsel contended that Exhibit A-22 does not contain any
reference to acid burns having caused the death of the deceased,
Jaya Devi.
44. Learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant has also referred
to the death report of Jaya Devi, wherein the cause of death has
been recorded as “septicemic shock due to 50% post-chemical burn
raw area.” He further submitted that even in the death report, there
is no mention of acid burns.
45. Learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant further
submitted that the deceased remained under treatment at Sushila
Tiwari Hospital, Haldwani for about two months and subsequently
died in Delhi. He, therefore, contended that the facts of the present
case do not attract the offence punishable under Section 302 of the
IPC.
Referring to the testimony of PW-5, who is the husband of
Smt. Jaya Devi, learned Amicus Curiae submitted that PW-5 has
26
admitted that he did not see who threw the acid upon the injured
and that he had come out only after hearing the noise.
46. Learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant would further
submit that PW-6 is a child witness and much credence cannot be
given to his testimony.
Referring to the cross-examination of PW-7, learned
Amicus Curiae for the appellant submitted that PW-7 had admitted
that at the time when the quarrel was taking place, she was inside
the house. He further submitted that she had admitted that she did
not actually see who had thrown the acid. However, thereafter, the
witness stated that it was Raghunath Singh who had thrown the
acid upon her.
47. Learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant further
submitted that the jerkin and the mug allegedly used in the incident
were not sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination,
which creates a serious doubt on the prosecution case.
Referring to the cross-examination of PW-4, learned
Amicus Curiae for the appellant submitted that when her mother
and aunt were raising an alarm, she was inside the room. By the
time she came out, acid had already been thrown upon her mother
and aunt. He further submitted that she had admitted that she had
not actually seen Raghunath Singh throwing acid upon them. On
the basis of the said testimony, learned counsel contended that PW-
4 is a tutored witness.
48. Learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant further
submitted that the prosecution has not conducted a proper
investigation in the matter. Referring to the cross-examination of
27
PW-1, learned counsel submitted that PW-1 has admitted that when
his daughters-in-law attacked his brother, the latter became
unconscious. On the basis of the said admission, it was contended
that the investigation failed to properly examine the injuries
sustained by the appellant and the circumstances in which they
were caused.
He further referred to the cross-examination of PW-6 and
submitted that the witness had admitted that his grandfather had
assaulted Raghunath Singh, as a result of which Raghunath Singh
fell unconscious.
Referring to the cross-examination of PW-8, learned
Amicus Curiae for the appellant submitted that Raghunath Singh
was also lying at the spot in an injured condition, with blood oozing
from his head, and that he was not in a position to speak.
49. Learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant further referred
to the cross-examination of PW-14 and submitted that the witness
had admitted that Raghunath Singh had sustained injuries on his
head, blood was oozing therefrom, and that he was in an
unconscious condition.
Referring to the deposition of PW-13, learned Amicus
Curiae for the appellant submitted that the jerkin was not sent by
the Patwari/Investigating Officer to the Forensic Science Laboratory
for examination. He further submitted that the
Patwari/Investigating Officer had also admitted that the blood-
stained mud and plain mud collected from the spot were not sent for
FSL examination.
28
50. Learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant further
submitted that the Investigating Officer had concealed the true facts
and circumstances of the case and that the prosecution had failed
to explain or account for the injuries sustained by the
accused/appellant.
51. Learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant would rely upon
the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Laxmi Singh
and others vs. State of Bihar” reported in (1976) 4 SCC 394 and
would refer to a certain portion of para 12 thereof, which is
extracted hereunder “…. In a situation like this when the prosecution
fails to explain the injuries on the person of an accused, depending on
the facts of each case, any of the three results may follow: (1) That
the accused had inflicted the injuries on the members of the
prosecution party in exercise of the right of self-defence, (2) It makes
the prosecution version of the occurrence doubtful and the charge
against the accused cannot be held to have been proved beyond
reasonable doubt and (3) It does not affect the prosecution case at
all…..” Relying upon the aforesaid principle, learned counsel
submitted that the prosecution has failed to explain the injuries
sustained by the accused/appellant. It was, therefore, contended
that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt and, consequently, the appellant is entitled to
acquittal.
Referring to the testimony of PW-17, learned Amicus
Curiae for the appellant further submitted that Smt. Jaya Devi had
informed the doctor that acid had been thrown upon her by her
uncle; however, she did not disclose the name of anyone.
29
52. Learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant further referred
to the testimony of DW-1 and submitted that there was a reference
to the discharge summary of Sushila Tiwari Hospital in the said
testimony. According to the discharge summary, there was mention
of injuries on the face and head caused by a sharp-edged weapon.
The document also recorded the presence of burn injuries.
53. Learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant further drew the
attention of the Court to the testimony of DW-3, Dr. Himanshu
Saxena, regarding the injuries sustained by the accused/appellant.
54. Learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant also placed
reliance upon the testimony of DW-2, Smt. Tara Devi, wherein she
deposed that Sher Singh had thrown something like water upon his
daughters-in-law and children. On the basis of the said testimony,
learned counsel submitted that the prosecution case is false and
that the accused/appellant has been falsely implicated. It was,
therefore, contended that the impugned judgment and order cannot
be sustained in law, the appeal deserves to be allowed, and the
impugned judgment and order deserve to be set aside.
55. Learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant submitted that
the FSL report cannot be relied upon. He contended that material
facts have been suppressed by the prosecution and that the
ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC
are not made out. He further submitted that the investigation is
wholly faulty inasmuch as the jerkin and the mug were handed over
at the hospital and were not seized in the ordinary course of
investigation.
56. Learned counsel further submitted that there is no
explanation as to where the seized material remained during the
30
intervening period of about four months before it was sent for
forensic examination. According to him, the prosecution has failed
to establish the chain of custody of the material exhibits. It was,
therefore, contended that the prosecution case is unreliable and
that the FSL report cannot be relied upon.
57. Per contra, Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, learned Deputy
Advocate General for the State, submitted that due to the acid
attack by the accused/appellant, the informant as well as his entire
family sustained serious injuries. It was only after the informant
was admitted to the hospital that a volunteer of the District Legal
Services Authority, Almora met him while he was undergoing
treatment. The informant narrated the incident to the volunteer,
who reduced the same into writing in the form of the First
Information Report, which was thereafter signed by the informant.
Thus, it was contended that since the informant was undergoing
treatment for acid burn injuries, the delay, if any, in lodging the FIR
has been properly explained and, therefore, no adverse inference
can be drawn on account of the delay.
58. Learned State counsel further submitted that the
testimonies of the injured witnesses cannot be ignored. The
statements of the injured persons are consistent with the
prosecution case. The presence of the accused/appellant is
established at the place of occurrence.
59. Learned State counsel further submitted that PW-1, PW-2,
PW-3, PW-4, PW-6 and PW-7 are not only eye-witnesses to the
incident but are also injured witnesses. They have categorically
deposed that, on the date of the incident, the accused/appellant was
in a drunken state and had thrown acid upon them.
31
60. Learned Deputy Advocate General further submitted that
Smt. Jaya Devi and Smt. Neema Devi sustained more severe injuries
as they were standing in the front when the acid attack was carried
out by the accused/appellant. Consequently, a larger quantity of
acid fell upon their bodies, resulting in serious burn injuries.
61. Learned Deputy Advocate General further submitted that
PW-9, Dr. Praveen Kumar of District Hospital, Almora, has duly
proved the medical papers, bed-head tickets, and discharge slips.
He was the doctor who had admitted the victims to the hospital and
has categorically deposed regarding the corrosive burns sustained
by them.
62. Learned Deputy Advocate General further submitted that
PW-10 and PW-11 were the panch witnesses. PW-12, Dr. Himanshu
Saxena, who was posted at Sushila Tiwari Hospital, Haldwani, has
clearly deposed regarding the nature and extent of the injuries
sustained by Jaya Devi and Neema Devi.
63. Learned Deputy Advocate General for the State further
referred to the medical report of Jaya Devi dated 11.09.2018,
wherein her injuries were stated to be life-threatening in nature. She
also referred to the supplementary medical report of Neema Devi,
which recorded that the injuries sustained by her were grievous in
nature.
She further submitted that PW-13, the Revenue Sub-
Inspector/Investigating Officer, proved Exhibits A-30 to A-43, of
which the site plan is a relevant document. PW-15, the driver who
had taken the injured persons to the hospital, who duly proved the
said fact and also deposed that Sher Singh was carrying the jerkin
and the mug.
32
64. Learned Deputy Advocate General further submitted that
PW-17, the doctor, proved Exhibits A-44 to A-47, which include the
medico-legal documents, the death summary, the death report of
Jaya Devi, and the medical slips. PW-18, the doctor who conducted
the post-mortem examination, duly proved the post-mortem report.
PW-20, the second Investigating Officer, proved Exhibits A-49 to A-
55, including the forwarding documents relating to the FSL report.
She further submitted that the prosecution has been able
to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. All the injured witnesses
have consistently supported the prosecution version.
65. Learned Deputy Advocate General for the State further
submitted that, even in light of the judgment in Laxmi Singh
(supra), the prosecution case remains unaffected. Referring to the
cross-examination of PW-1, she pointed out that PW-1 had stated
that when the accused/appellant brought the acid, the daughters-
in-law attacked him. According to learned counsel, this sufficiently
explains the injuries sustained by the accused/appellant. Therefore,
it is not a case of non-explanation of injury on an act and it does not
adversely affect the prosecution case and does not create any doubt
regarding the guilt of the accused/appellant.
She further submitted that there is clear ocular evidence
establishing that the accused/appellant threw acid upon the injured
witnesses. In view of the consistent testimony of the injured eye-
witnesses, the offence punishable under Section 326A of the IPC
stands duly established.
66. Learned Deputy Advocate General further submitted that
the medical evidence fully corroborates the ocular testimony. The
doctors have specifically deposed regarding the corrosive burns
33
sustained by the victims, and the medical records also contain
references to acid burns. Accordingly, it was contended that the
charge under Section 326A of IPC has also been proved beyond
reasonable doubt.
67. Learned Deputy Advocate General for the State further
submitted that it is the prosecution case that the
accused/appellant, while heavily intoxicated, initially abused and
quarrelled with the informant (PW-1). Thereafter, he went inside his
house, brought a jerkin containing acid along with a mug, and
deliberately made an acid attack upon the injured persons,
including the informant. It was contended that the conduct of the
accused/appellant in procuring the acid and thereafter throwing it
upon the victims clearly demonstrates his intention to commit the
offence and cause fatal injuries. She further submitted that the
testimonies of all the injured witnesses and eye-witnesses are
consistent. It was further contended that the testimony of an injured
witness carries great value and is considered more reliable.
Accordingly, learned counsel submitted that the offences punishable
under Sections 326A and 302 of the IPC are clearly made out
against the accused/appellant.
68. Having heard the rival contentions of respective counsel
for the parties and having gone through the record, the case is
analysed in the following paragraphs.
69. As far as the aspect of delay in lodging the FIR is
concerned, since the informant and his entire family were injured
and were admitted to the hospital, and were undergoing treatment,
the delay in lodging the FIR is not material and does not create any
doubt on the prosecution case. In fact, the informant was under
34
treatment in the District Hospital in Almora & it was only when
volunteers of District Legal Services Authority met the informant,
the FIR could be lodged. The delay is thus duly explained.
70. So far as the aspect of testimony of injured witness is
concerned, in the case of “Balu Sudam Khalde and Another vs. State
of Maharashtra“, (2023) 13 SCC 365, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has laid down the principles for appreciating evidence of an injured
witness. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-
“26. When the evidence of an injured eyewitness is to be
appreciated, the undernoted legal principles enunciated by the
courts are required to be kept in mind:
26.1. The presence of an injured eyewitness at the time and
place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are
material contradictions in his deposition.26.2. Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must
be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real
culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused.26.3. The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary
value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are
not to be discarded lightly.
26.4. The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on
account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor
contradictions.
26.5. If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishments
in the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction,
exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the
evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence.26.6. The broad substratum of the prosecution version must be
taken into consideration and discrepancies which normally creep
due to loss of memory with passage of time should be discarded.”
71. Reference is also made to the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of “Abdul Sayeed vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh“, (2010) 10 SCC 259, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in paragraph nos.28, 29 and 30 has held as under:-
35
“28. The question of the weight to be attached to the evidence of a
witness that was himself injured in the course of the occurrence
has been extensively discussed by this Court. Where a witness to
the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the
testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very
reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built-in guarantee
of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare
his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone.
“Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness.”
[Vide Ramlagan Singh v. State of Bihar [(1973) 3 SCC 881 : 1973
SCC (Cri) 563 : AIR 1972 SC 2593] , Malkhan Singh v. State of
U.P. [(1975) 3 SCC 311 : 1974 SCC (Cri) 919 : AIR 1975 SC 12]
, Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab [(1983) 3 SCC 470 : 1983 SCC
(Cri) 681] , Appabhai v. State of Gujarat [1988 Supp SCC 241 :
1988 SCC (Cri) 559 : AIR 1988 SC 696] , Bonkya v. State of
Maharashtra [(1995) 6 SCC 447 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 1113] , Bhag
Singh [(1997) 7 SCC 712 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1163] , Mohar v. State
of U.P. [(2002) 7 SCC 606 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 121] (SCC p. 606b-
c), Dinesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan [(2008) 8 SCC 270 :
(2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 472] , Vishnu v. State of Rajasthan [(2009) 10
SCC 477 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 302] , Annareddy Sambasiva
Reddy v. State of A.P. [(2009) 12 SCC 546 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri)
630] and Balraje v. State of Maharashtra [(2010) 6 SCC 673 :
(2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 211] .]
29. While deciding this issue, a similar view was taken in Jarnail
Singh v. State of Punjab [(2009) 9 SCC 719 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri)
107] , where this Court reiterated the special evidentiary status
accorded to the testimony of an injured accused and relying on
its earlier judgments held as under : (SCC pp. 726-27, paras 28-
29)
“28. Darshan Singh (PW 4) was an injured witness. He had
been examined by the doctor. His testimony could not be
36
brushed aside lightly. He had given full details of the
incident as he was present at the time when the assailants
reached the tubewell. In Shivalingappa
Kallayanappa v. State of Karnataka [1994 Supp (3) SCC
235 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 1694] this Court has held that the
deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon
unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence
on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies, for
the reason that his presence on the scene stands
established in case it is proved that he suffered the injury
during the said incident.
29. In State of U.P. v. Kishan Chand [(2004) 7 SCC 629 :
2004 SCC (Cri) 2013] a similar view has been reiterated
observing that the testimony of a stamped witness has its
own relevance and efficacy. The fact that the witness
sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence, lends
support to his testimony that he was present during the
occurrence. In case the injured witness is subjected to
lengthy cross-examination and nothing can be elicited to
discard his testimony, it should be relied upon
(vide Krishan v. State of Haryana [(2006) 12 SCC 459 :
(2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 214] ). Thus, we are of the considered
opinion that evidence of Darshan Singh (PW 4) has rightly
been relied upon by the courts below.”
30. The law on the point can be summarised to the effect that the
testimony of the injured witness is accorded a special status in
law. This is as a consequence of the fact that the injury to the
witness is an inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the scene of the
crime and because the witness will not want to let his actual
assailant go unpunished merely to falsely implicate a third party
for the commission of the offence. Thus, the deposition of the
injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong
37
grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major
contradictions and discrepancies therein.”
72. On considering the evidence on record and in particular
the testimony of PW-1, who is himself the injured witness, there is
clear and categorical evidence about the manner in which the
appellant-accused made the acid attack on the injured and the
injuries sustained by them.
73. The question that arises for consideration is whether the
prosecution has been able to prove its case against the
accused/appellant beyond reasonable doubt and whether conviction
of appellant under Sections 326A, 302 and 504 of the IPC is
sustainable in law.
74. A perusal of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses
reveals that they are consistent with regard to the manner in which
the incident occurred. The witnesses have consistently stated that
the accused/appellant, while in a drunken state, was quarrelling
with and abusing the informant (PW-1). Thereafter, he went inside
his house, brought a jerkin containing acid along with a mug, and
threw the acid upon the informant and his family members. The
evidence further indicates that he did not even spare the young
children, all of whom sustained acid burn injuries.
75. The evidence on record further establishes that Smt. Jaya
Devi and Smt. Neema Devi sustained serious acid burn injuries.
Owing to the severity of their injuries, both were referred to Sushila
Tiwari Hospital, Haldwani for specialised treatment. Unfortunately,
despite undergoing treatment, Jaya Devi died on 20.11.2018.
38
76. Learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant had relied upon
certain portions of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, as
well as certain shortcomings on the part of the Investigating Officer,
in an attempt to assail the findings recorded in the impugned
judgment. He has submitted that there are inconsistencies in the
statements of prosecution witnesses. It needs to be stated that
there are minor inconsistencies which do not create any doubt on
the prosecution case as the prosecution witnesses are consistent
about the acid attack by the accused/appellant and the resultant
acid burn injuries sustained by the deceased and the injured. It is
also settled law that any anomaly or shortcoming in the
investigation does not affect the prosecution case. In this regard,
reference needs to be made to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Naresh and Others
reported in (2011) 4 SCC 324, wherein, at para 30, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court dealt with the minor inconsistencies in the
prosecution case. The relevant portion of para 30 thereof is being
extracted hereunder:-
“30. In all criminal cases, normal discrepancies are bound to
occur in the depositions of witnesses due to normal errors of
observation, namely, errors of memory due to lapse of time or due
to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of
occurrence. Where the omissions amount to a contradiction,
creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the witness
and other witnesses also make material improvement while
deposing in the court, such evidence cannot be safe to rely upon.
However, minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments
or improvements on trivial matters which do not affect the core of
the prosecution case, should not be made a ground on which the
evidence can be rejected in its entirety. The court has to form its
39opinion about the credibility of the witness and record a finding
as to whether his deposition inspires confidence…….”
However, insofar as the attempt to deny the very incident
dated 10.09.2018 is concerned, the same cannot be accepted. The
occurrence of the incident stands admitted even from the testimony
of DW-2, Smt. Tara Devi, the wife of Raghunath Singh. In her cross-
examination, DW-2 admitted that her husband had consumed
liquor on the day of the incident.
77. Learned Amicus Curiae has also pointed out certain
lapses on the part of the Investigating Officer and has argued that
on account of the same, the prosecution case becomes doubtful. In
this regard, reference needs to be made to the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Edakkandi Dineshan alias P.
Dineshan and Others Vs. State of Kerala‘, reported in (2025) 3 SCC
273, wherein, it is held that on account of defective investigation,
the benefit will not inure to the accused persons on that ground
alone. Relevant paras 26 and 27 thereof are being extracted
hereunder :-
“26. A cumulative reading of the entire evidence on record
suggests that the investigation has not taken place in a proper
and disciplined manner. There are various areas where a proper
investigation could have strengthened its case. In Paras
Yadav v. State of Bihar [Paras Yadav v. State of Bihar, (1999) 2
SCC 126 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 104] , the Supreme Court observed as
under : (SCC p. 130, para 8)
“8. … the lapse on the part of the investigating officer
should not be taken in favour of the accused. It may be that
such lapse is committed designedly or because of
negligence. Hence, the prosecution evidence is required to
40be examined dehors such omissions to find out whether the
said evidence is reliable or not. For this purpose, it would be
worthwhile to quote the following observations of this Court
from Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar [Ram Bihari
Yadav v. State of Bihar, (1998) 4 SCC 517 : 1998 SCC (Cri)
1085] : (SCC pp. 523-24, para 13)
’13. … In such cases, the story of the prosecution will have
to be examined dehors such omissions and contaminated
conduct of the officials otherwise the mischief which was
deliberately done would be perpetuated and justice would
be denied to the complainant party and this would
obviously shake the confidence of the people not merely in
the law-enforcing agency but also in the administration of
justice.’ “
27. Hence, the principle of law is crystal clear that on the account
of defective investigation the benefit will not inure to the accused
persons on that ground alone. It is well within the domain of the
courts to consider the rest of the evidence which the prosecution
has gathered such as statement of the eyewitnesses, medical
report, etc. It has been a consistent stand of this Court that the
accused cannot claim acquittal on the ground of faulty
investigation done by the prosecuting agency. As the version of
eyewitnesses in specifically naming the appellants have been
consistent throughout the trial, we find that there is enough
corroboration to drive home the guilt of the accused persons.
When the testimony of PW 1 Jitesh, PW 2 and PW 4 is seen
cumulatively, their versions can be seen to be corroborating each
other. All of them being eyewitnesses, what is material to be seen
is their stand is consistent when they said that it was A-2 who
was responsible for inflicting blows on both the deceased. It may
not be out of place to mention that though the unfortunate
incident took place at midnight around 1 a.m., it was a full moon
41
night and as such, it was not pitch dark. This has also not been
vehemently disputed by the defence counsel. Hence, the version
put forth by the prosecution witnesses inspires confidence of this
Court. The specific role attributed by the prosecution witnesses
cannot be challenged on extraneous grounds which have been
raised by the defence. There is no contradiction when it comes to
assigning specific role to the above accused. Admittedly, there
was an enmity between the witnesses as they were from
different political groups. Moreover, it can be seen from the record
that the accused and the witnesses were well acquainted with
each other as PW 1, PW 2 and PW 4 had defected from CPI and
had joined RSS. The witnesses could have tried to implicate
anyone had they wished to take advantage of their past
acquaintance and recent rivalry.”
78. DW-2 further admitted that, owing to the substance
contained in the jerkin, Sher Singh and his family members had to
be taken to the hospital for treatment. Thus, two basic facts stand
established from the testimony of DW-2. Firstly, on the date of the
incident, the accused/appellant had consumed liquor and was in an
intoxicated condition. Secondly, Sher Singh and his family members
sustained injuries as a result of the substance contained in the
jerkin, which caused burn injuries necessitating medical treatment.
Therefore, the deposition of the injured witnesses needs to be relied
upon, more so since it has surfaced in the cross-examination of PW-
20 that accused/appellant used to possess acid which he used to
use in extraction of resin.
79. Insofar as the reliance placed upon the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Singh (supra) is
concerned, this Court finds that the injuries sustained by the
accused/appellant have been duly explained by the prosecution. In
42
his cross-examination, PW-1 categorically stated that when
Raghunath Singh came to throw acid, he was attacked with a Darati
(sickle) by his daughters-in-law, as a result of which he sustained
injuries.
80. Thus, the injuries found on the person of the
accused/appellant stand satisfactorily explained by the prosecution
evidence. Consequently, the accused/appellant cannot derive any
benefit from the alleged non-explanation of his injuries.
81. Since the injuries sustained by the deceased, Jaya Devi,
as a result of the acid attack stand duly proved, and it is also
established that she underwent prolonged treatment following the
acid burns and ultimately died on 20.11.2018 in Delhi due to
septicemia arising from those injuries, hence, the offence
punishable under Section 302 of the IPC is clearly attracted.
82. The evidence on record further demonstrates that, after
the initial quarrel and exchange of abuses, the accused/appellant
acted with premeditation. He went inside his house, brought a
jerkin containing acid along with a mug, and deliberately threw the
acid upon the deceased and the other victims. Such conduct clearly
establishes his intention to cause death, or at the very least to inflict
injuries of such a nature as were likely to result in death. The
appellant acted in a gruesome and cruel manner to carry out his
intentions. Accordingly, the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC
is fully justified.
83. Likewise, the evidence of the injured eye-witnesses, duly
corroborated by the medical evidence, conclusively establishes that
the accused/appellant caused grievous burn injuries by throwing
acid upon the victims. Consequently, the offence punishable under
43
Section 326A of the IPC also stands proved beyond reasonable
doubt.
84. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by
learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the
impugned judgment and order dated 27.07.2022/30.07.2022 does
not warrant any interference and the appeal deserves to be
dismissed.
85. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
86. Let a copy of this judgment along with the original records
be sent to the trial court concerned.
(Siddhartha Sah, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.)
06.07.2026 06.07.2026
Akash
Digitally signed by AKASH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
AKASH
UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=dae2472c001d56469ea76fc0caa68f
48ef73518c148d140566ab1e26f9cbe61d,
postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand,
serialNumber=27096a1625377537a487dee4
9224c891823fc6a0334628b21e516047ed4f2
2f7, cn=AKASH
Date: 2026.07.07 16:14:04 +05'30'
