http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  329 of 2006

PETITIONER: Ram Charittar & another etc

RESPONDENT: State of Uttar Pradesh  etc

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/04/2007

BENCH: S. B. Sinha & Markandey Katju

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.766 OF 2006

MARKANDEY KATJU, J.

These two connected appeals have been filed against the impugned  judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 14.12.2005 in Government  Appeal No.2083 of 1981.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The incident in question took place on the night of 28/29th March,  1980 in village Gaayghat, Police Station Kalwari, District Basti.  There were  four accused in the case.  The appellants Ram Charittar and Kishori Lal, who  are the brothers of one Ram Chet, are two of the accused.  The other co- accused were Ram Kumar son of Kishori Lal and Chandrawati wife of the  appellant Ram Charittar.  It is alleged that the accused killed Sushila widow  of Ram Chet as well as her two young daughters Bindu and Nandini by  throwing acid on them.

The trial court acquitted all the accused by its judgment dated  12.5.1981 but in appeal the High Court convicted the appellants Ram  Charittar and Kishori Lal under Section 302/34 IPC, and  sentenced them to  life imprisonment, but gave the benefit of doubt to the other co-accused Ram  Kumar and Chandrawati and thus affirmed their acquittal.

We have carefully gone through the material on record.  It is alleged  that the motive for killing Sushila and her children was to grab her property.

The prosecution case is that in between the eventful night at about 3  o’clock, cries and shrieks emanating from the house of Sushila attracted her  neighbours \026 Bhagwati PW-2, Ram Din PW-3, Mangroo PW-4, Prem  Narain PW-5 and several others to the scene.  They saw the accused Ram  Charittar, Kishori Lal, Ram Kumar and Chandrawati coming out of the  house of the deceased which was near their own houses.  Ram Charittar had  in his hand a bottle of acid.   Seeing the witnesses, Ram Charittar dropped  the bottle of acid in the verandah of the deceased.  The bottle was broken  and the acid splashed on the floor.  The witnesses succeeded in  apprehending the accused Ram Charittar, Kishori Lal and Chandrawati at the  spot, but Ram Kumar made good his escape.  Ram Charittar applied some  acid to his face and some acid fell on the face of his wife accused  Chandrawati.  In the meantime, Sushila came out with her younger daughter  Nandini rolling on the floor and both of them died near her door.  Bindu  elder daughter of Sushila was also badly burnt with acid.  While crying she  said that ’Badka Dada’ had thrown acid on them.  Being badly burnt with  acid she was taken to the District Hospital, where she died.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

The post mortem report of the deceased shows that there are acid burn  injuries on large parts of their bodies including their face, chest, neck, etc.   According to the Doctor the death was due to the corrosive acid burns and  shock.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there were no eye  witnesses to the incident.  It is true that there were no eye witnesses to the  incident but there were as many as four witnesses being Bhagwati PW-2,  Ram Din PW-3, Mangroo PW-4, Prem Narain PW-5, who have stated in  their evidence that they saw the accused coming out of the house of Sushila.   The appellant Ram Charittar had an acid bottle in his hand.  These witnesses  and other people got hold of Ram Charittar, Kishori Lal and Chandrawati  but Ram Kumar fled away.

The evidence of these four witnesses is consistent. Thus there is  strong circumstantial evidence against the appellants.  We see no reason to  disbelieve these evidences and hence we agree with the view taken by the  High Court.  The medical evidence corroborates the evidence of these  witnesses and there is also the dying declaration of Bindu the elder daughter  of Sushila.

In the present case, there was strong motive for the accused to  liquidate the deceased to grab the property.  On killing them the accused  became the immediate beneficiary to the estate left by the husband of  deceased Sushila.  No enmity with the accused could be proved by the  evidence against the witnesses, and hence we agree with the High Court that  some minor contradictions will not shake their testimony.  Thus we dismiss  the appeal of Ram Charittar and Kishori Lal. As regards the State’s appeal against the acquittal of Ram Kumar and  Chandrawati, the High Court has given these accused the benefit of doubt.   We see no reason to disagree with the view taken by the High Court.

Thus, there is no force in both these appeals and both are dismissed.