The Uttarakhand High Court has upheld the life imprisonment sentence of a man who launched a devastating acid attack on his elder brother’s family following a domestic dispute, resulting in one death and multiple injuries.
A division bench comprising Justices Ravindra Maithani and Siddhartha Sah rejected the appeal of Raghunath Singh, who was challenging his July 2022 conviction by a trial court. The high court observed that Singh acted in an exceptionally cruel manner and did not spare even young children during the assault.
Background Of The Dispute And Assault
The prosecution established that the conflict arose around 6:00 PM on September 10, 2018, due to a personal grudge between Singh and his elder brother, Sher Singh. Following an exchange of verbal abuse while in an intoxicated state, Raghunath Singh retrieved a jerrycan of acid and a mug from his house. He then threw the chemical over his brother and other family members.
The victims sustained severe corrosive chemical burns and were immediately hospitalized. One relative, Jaya Devi, suffered critical, life-threatening injuries. After undergoing treatment in a Delhi hospital for nearly two months, she succumbed to her injuries in November 2018. The local police filed a First Information Report the day after the incident, leading to Singh’s subsequent arrest and his 2022 conviction for murder and carrying out an acid attack.
Defense Arguments Dismissed By The Bench
During the appeal, the amicus curiae representing Singh, advocate Mohd Matlub, argued that the investigation was flawed and that the investigating officer had hidden crucial facts. Matlub also contended that the prosecution failed to account for injuries sustained by the accused and argued that the murder charge was inapplicable because the victim died weeks later in a different city while receiving medical care.
However, Deputy Advocate General Manisha Rana Singh, representing the state, countered that medical reports and consistent eyewitness testimonies clearly proved Singh’s direct responsibility for the attack. She emphasized that the statements of the injured witnesses carry high reliability in court.
The high court agreed with the state’s counsel, ruling that minor inconsistencies in testimony or any shortcomings in the police investigation did not weaken the prosecution’s overall case. The bench also dismissed concerns regarding the one-day delay in lodging the FIR, noting that the priority for the injured family members was securing immediate, life-saving medical treatment.
Concluding that Singh’s actions demonstrated a clear intent to cause fatal injuries, the court found no grounds to alter the trial court’s original judgment and dismissed the appeal.
