RAM CHRITTAR AND ANR. ETC. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH ETC.

Citation: [2007] 4 S.C.R. 773 · Decided: 04-04-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

--
~ 
I ; 
RAM CHRITTAR AND ANR. ETC. 
A 
v. 
STA TE OF UTT AR PRADESH ETC. 
APRIL 4, 2007 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, 1860: 
s. 302/34 /PC-Two brothers and two others causing death of widow 
and two daughters of their deceased brother by throwing acid on them-1 C 
Three accused caught by neighbours at the spot-Acquittal by trial court~ 
High Court convicting two of them and affirming acquittal of remaining two, 
giving them benefit of doubt-Held, though there were no eye witness to the 
incident, keeping in view the circumstantial evidence supported by medical' 
evidence and there being motive to grab the property of deceased, conviction, D 
of two accused by High Court and acquittal of remaining two giving them 
benefit of doubt needs no interference-Circumstantial evidence. 
Four persons, namely, the two appellants alongwith wife of appellant no •. 
1 and son of appellant no. 2, were prosecuted for the murders of the widow of 
appellant's brother and her two young daughters, by throwing acid on them. E 
The trial court acquitted all the four. The High Court convicted the two 
appellants u/s 302/34 IPC and sentenced them to imprisonment for life, and 
affirmed the 1tcquittal of the remaining two, giving them benefit of doubt 
Appeal No. 329 of2006 was filed by the two convicted accused and Appeal no. 
766 of 2006 was filed by the State against acquittal of other two accused. 
F 
Dismissing both the appeals, the Court 
HELD: It is true there were no eye witness to the incident, but there 
were as many as four witness, namely PWs 2 to S, who are the neighbours 
and who have stated in their evidence that they saw the accused coming out of G 
the house of the victims. Appellant no. 1 had an acid bottle in his hand. These . 
witnesses and other people got bold of accused-appellant nos. 1 and 2 and the 
wife of appellant no. 1, but the son of appellant no. 2 filed away. The evidence 
of these four witne~ses is consistent. Thus, there is strong circumstantial 
evidence against the appellants. The medical evidence corroborates the 
773 
lI 
i 
774 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 4 S.C.R. 
A evidence of these witnesses and there is also the saying declaration of one of 
..._ 
the deceased stating that appellant no. 1 had thrown acid on them. 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 h•isband of the deceased. No enmity of the 
B 
witnesses with the accused could be proved by the evidence. The High Court 
held that some minor contradictions will not shake their testimony. There is 
no reason to disagree with the view taken ~y the High Court in convicting the 
two accused appellants and affirming the acquittal of the remaining two 
__.._ 
accused giving them benefit of doubt. 
~ 
[Paras 8, 9, 10 and 11) [775-G-H; 776-B-D) 
-'""' 
c 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 329 of 
2006. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.12.2005 of the High Court of 
Judicature at Allahabad in Government AppealNo. 2083 of 1981. 
D 
WITH 
Crl. A. No. 766 of2006. 
...-\-
~ 
S.B. Sanyal, Raj Kumar Gupta, Sheo Kumar Gupta, Bhanu Pratap Gupta 
E 
and A.N .. Bardiyar for the Appellants. 
) 
Pramod Swaup, Irshad Ahmad, Ameet Singh, Dr. J.B. Gaur, Piyush Shanna 
and Neeraj Dt!tta Gaur for the Respondent. 
nie Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
F 
MARKANDEY KATJU, J. l. 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 of1981. 
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 
G 
3. 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 
--x 
appellant Ram Charittar. It is alleged that the accused killed Sushila widow of 
H Ram Chet as well as her two young daughters Bindu and Nandini by throwing 
j ... 
RAM CHRITIAR v. STA TE OF lTITAR PRADESH ETC. [MARKANDEY KAT JU, J.] 775 
acid on them. 
A 
4. The trial court acquitted all the accused by its judgment dated 
12.5.1981 but in appeal the High Court convicted the appellants 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.