Uttarakhand HC Upholds Life Sentence for Acid Attack That Killed Daughter-in-Law, Injured Five Family Members

A Division Bench of the Uttarakhand High Court confirmed convictions under Sections 302, 326A and 504 IPC against Raghunath Singh, who threw acid on his brother's family in 2018, killing one woman and grievously injuring five others.

On 6 July 2026, a Division Bench of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital, comprising Justice Ravindra Maithani and Justice Siddhartha Sah, dismissed the criminal jail appeal filed by Raghunath Singh against his conviction and sentence by the Additional Sessions Judge, Almora. The trial court had found him guilty under Sections 326A, 302 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing him to life imprisonment for murder, twelve years' rigorous imprisonment for the acid attack, and six months' rigorous imprisonment for intentional insult. All sentences run concurrently. The Division Bench, in a judgment authored by Justice Siddhartha Sah, found no ground to interfere, holding that the testimony of multiple injured eye-witnesses was consistent, medically corroborated, and not dislodged by the defence's self-defence theory or its challenge to the investigation.

The Acid Attack on the Evening of 10 September 2018

The incident took place on 10 September 2018 at around 5:00–6:00 p.m. in Revenue Police area Dalakot, District Almora. Raghunath Singh and his elder brother Sher Singh lived in adjacent houses and shared a long-standing personal dispute, including a quarrel over a pathway.

On that evening, Raghunath Singh arrived at Sher Singh's courtyard in an intoxicated state and began abusing the family. When his daughters-in-law questioned him, he became more agitated and went inside his own house. He returned carrying a five-litre jerkin and a mug containing acid and threw two to three mugs of the liquid on the family members assembled in the courtyard. Those present at the time were Sher Singh himself, his wife Mohini Devi, his two daughters-in-law Neema Devi and Jaya Devi, and grandchildren Kiran, Chandni and Harish.

The acid caused severe corrosive burn injuries to all of them. Sher Singh sustained burns on his face, chest and neck. Chandni sustained burns on her face and anterior chest. Mohini Devi sustained burns on her leg and hand. Kiran sustained burns on her face and left arm. Neema Devi, who bore the brunt of the attack, sustained superficial deep burns of 25–35 per cent covering her face, left arm, left eye and both hands. Jaya Devi suffered the most critical injuries, with 60–70 per cent superficial deep burns on her face, abdomen, and all four limbs, described in a supplementary medical report dated 11 September 2018 as life-threatening.

All the injured were initially taken to the District Hospital, Almora. Neema Devi and Jaya Devi were referred to Dr. Sushila Tiwari Government Hospital, Haldwani, where both remained admitted for approximately two months. Their condition not improving, both were subsequently referred to Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi. Jaya Devi was admitted to Safdarjung on 12 November 2018 with 50 per cent burn injuries and died on 20 November 2018 at 7:45 a.m. from septicaemic shock due to infected ante-mortem chemical burn injuries covering approximately 50 per cent of her body surface. The post-mortem was conducted by Dr. Vedant Kulshreshtha (Exhibit A-48).

The FIR, registered as FIR No. 01 of 2018, was lodged on 11 September 2018 at the Revenue Police area Dalakot, under Sections 326A and 504 IPC. It was lodged after PLV activists of the District Legal Services Authority, Almora, visited the hospital, met the injured Sher Singh, and carried his signed written report to the Revenue Sub-Inspector at the Tehsil Headquarters. Section 302 IPC was added after the post-mortem report was received. A charge-sheet was filed on 20 February 2019.

The case was registered as Sessions Trial No. 9 of 2019 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Almora. Charges under Sections 326A, 302 and 504 IPC were framed on 18 April 2019. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial.

Defence Theory: Self-Defence and False Implication

The defence case, developed through cross-examination and two defence witnesses, was that Raghunath Singh had been attacked first. DW-2, Smt. Tara Devi, wife of the accused, deposed that when Raghunath Singh returned home, Mohini Devi and Neema Devi attacked him with a darati (sickle), causing him to become unconscious and bleed from his head. She claimed that it was Sher Singh who then brought the jerkin and threw the liquid on his own family members, and that Raghunath Singh was subsequently taken to Base Hospital, Almora, and then to Sushila Tiwari Hospital, Haldwani.

DW-3, Dr. Himanshu Saxena of Sushila Tiwari Hospital, confirmed in evidence through video conferencing that Raghunath Singh was admitted on 11 September 2018 at 9:25 a.m. with a laceration on his forehead measuring 10 x 1 cm, a stitched injury on his left cheek, swelling of the left eye, and chemical burns at four to five places on his stomach, back and left hand. DW-1, a Medical Officer from the District Jail, placed on record the discharge summary from Sushila Tiwari Hospital reflecting both the sharp-weapon injuries and the burn injuries.

The accused, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied all prosecution evidence and asserted that Sher Singh had thrown acid upon his own family members to falsely implicate him.

The Amicus Curiae, Mr. Mohd. Matlub, pressed several additional grounds: that the FIR was delayed and lodged as an afterthought; that the initial medical reports from Almora described only “corrosive burns” without specifically mentioning acid; that Jaya Devi died more than two months after the incident from septicaemia and not directly from the attack, which he argued took the case outside Section 302 IPC; that the jerkin and mug were never sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory; that the blood-stained mud from the spot was similarly not sent for FSL examination; that the chain of custody of the seized material over the four-month gap before FSL examination was not established; and that the prosecution had failed to explain Raghunath Singh's injuries, attracting the principle in Laxmi Singh and Others v. State of Bihar, (1976) 4 SCC 394.

How the Division Bench Analysed the Evidence

The bench dealt with each contention systematically.

Delay in FIR. The court held that the delay was fully explained. The informant and his entire family were hospitalised with acid burn injuries. It was only when DLSA volunteers visited the hospital on 11 September 2018 that the FIR could be lodged. No adverse inference was warranted.

Injured eye-witnesses. Six prosecution witnesses — PW-1 Sher Singh, PW-2 Mohini Devi, PW-3 Neema Devi, PW-4 Kiran, PW-6 Harish and PW-7 Chandni — were both eye-witnesses to the incident and injured in it. Their accounts were consistent: Raghunath Singh arrived drunk, abused the family, went inside his house, returned with the jerkin and mug, and threw acid on those present. The court applied the principles from Balu Sudam Khalde and Another v. State of Maharashtra, (2023) 13 SCC 365, and Abdul Sayeed v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 10 SCC 259, holding that an injured eye-witness carries a built-in guarantee of presence at the scene and is unlikely to spare the real assailant to falsely implicate another. Minor discrepancies in the testimonies did not affect the core of the prosecution case.

Admission by DW-2. The bench gave particular weight to the cross-examination of DW-2, Tara Devi, who admitted that her husband had consumed liquor on the day of the incident, and admitted that the substance in the jerkin had caused the family of Sher Singh to go to hospital for treatment. These two admissions — the accused's intoxicated state and the causal link between the jerkin's contents and the victims' injuries — were treated as independent corroboration from a defence witness.

Acid in the accused's possession. In cross-examination of PW-20, the Investigating Officer, it emerged that Raghunath Singh used to possess acid for extraction of resins. This was treated as further corroboration of the prosecution case.

Initial medical reports referring to “corrosive burns”. The bench rejected the argument that the absence of the word “acid” in the first medical reports at Almora undermined the prosecution. The doctors at Almora described the injuries as corrosive burns. Subsequent records from Sushila Tiwari Hospital and Safdarjung Hospital, the supplementary medical reports, the post-mortem report, and the FSL report collectively established that the burns were caused by acid.

Section 302 IPC and delayed death. The bench held that the death of Jaya Devi was directly attributable to the acid attack. She was taken from Almora to Haldwani, then to Safdarjung Hospital, and died on 20 November 2018 from septicaemic shock arising from the infected chemical burns covering 50 per cent of her body. PW-12 Dr. Himanshu Saxena had deposed that Jaya Devi's injuries were grievous and of such a nature as to be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course. PW-18 Dr. Vedant Kulshreshtha's post-mortem report confirmed the same. The fact that death occurred after prolonged treatment did not break the chain of causation.

Explanation of injuries on the accused. The bench found that the prosecution had satisfactorily explained Raghunath Singh's injuries. PW-1 admitted in cross-examination that when Raghunath Singh came to throw acid, the daughters-in-law attacked him with a darati. That admission itself explained the sharp-weapon injuries found on the accused's face and head. The bench held that the Laxmi Singh principle did not assist the defence because the injuries were accounted for.

Defective investigation. The court acknowledged the lapses — the jerkin and mug were not sent to the FSL by the Revenue Sub-Inspector, the blood-stained mud was not sent for forensic analysis, and the initial investigation was conducted by a Revenue Sub-Inspector before being transferred to regular police. Relying on Edakkandi Dineshan alias P. Dineshan and Others v. State of Kerala, (2025) 3 SCC 273, the bench held that defective investigation does not by itself entitle an accused to acquittal. The remaining evidence — consistent testimony of injured eye-witnesses, medical records, and the FSL report on the case property sent later — was sufficient to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

Premeditation and Section 302 IPC. The bench found that after the initial quarrel and exchange of abuses, the accused went inside his house and fetched the acid jerkin and mug. This deliberate act of procuring the acid and returning to throw it on the victims demonstrated his intention to cause death, or at minimum to inflict injuries of a nature likely to result in death. The bench described his conduct as gruesome and cruel, justifying the conviction under Section 302 IPC.

Outcome

The Division Bench dismissed Criminal Jail Appeal No. 80 of 2022 on 6 July 2026. The judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Almora dated 27 July 2022 / 30 July 2022, convicting Raghunath Singh under Sections 326A, 302 and 504 IPC, was confirmed.

The sentences stand as follows: life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 15,000/- (default six months) under Section 302 IPC; twelve years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (default six months) under Section 326A IPC; and six months' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (default fifteen days) under Section 504 IPC. All sentences are to run concurrently.

The court directed that a copy of its judgment along with the original records be sent to the trial court.