Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2026 INSC 3
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 591 OF 2020
ANJANI SINGH …APPELLANT(S)
Versus
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
MANOJ MISRA, J.
1. This appeal arises from judgment and order of the High Court
1
of Judicature at Allahabad dated 05.07.2019 passed in Criminal
Appeal No. 8133 of 2007.
Facts
2. Three persons, namely, Anjani Singh (Appellant No. 1),
Ravindra Singh (Appellant No. 2) and Rishabh Dev Singh were tried
in Sessions Trial No. 28 of 2005 for offences punishable under
2
Sections 302/34, 307/34 and 504 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 . All
three were convicted by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
KAVITA PAHUJA
Date: 2026.01.05
15:53:17 IST
Reason:
1
The High Court
2
IPC
Page 1 of 24
Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2020
Court No. 1, Ballia (in short the Trial Court). Appellant Nos. 1 and
2 were convicted under Sections 302, 307 and 504 of IPC, whereas
Rishabh Dev Singh was convicted under Sections 302/34, 307/34
and 504 of IPC.
3. On appeal to the High Court, Rishabh Dev Singh (for short
Rishab) was acquitted whereas conviction of Anjani Singh (for short
Anjani) and Ravindra Singh (for short Ravindra) was affirmed vide
the impugned order.
4. Aggrieved by affirmation of their conviction, this appeal has
been filed. During pendency of this appeal, Appellant No. 2 i.e.,
Ravindra passed away and, therefore, his appeal abated vide order
dated 07.08.2025. The present appeal survives qua Anjani alone.
Prosecution case
5. The prosecution case in a nutshell is that on 20.10.2004, a
function for establishment of Durga idol was held at the village. To
celebrate the occasion, a drama play was arranged and held
beneath a pandal. Informant’s (PW-1’s) son, aged about 10 years,
was amongst the audience, sitting in the front row. During drama
play, Anjani started beating PW-1’s son. When PW-1 objected to
it, Anjani got infuriated and left the scene. Thereafter, at around
Page 2 of 24
Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2020
09:00 PM, Anjani, with a country made pistol in his hand, Ravindra
i.e., Anjani’s brother, with a licensed rifle, and their father Rishabh,
with a lathi, came and exhorted each other to kill PW-1.
Whereafter, Ravindra and Anjani started firing from their
respective weapons causing firearm injuries to PW-1, Harendra
Kumar Yadav (PW-10), Mritunjay Kumar Yadav (PW-7), Vimlesh
Dubey (PW-2), Umesh Kumar Thakur (PW-3), Krishna Kant Verma
(deceased no.1) and Banarasi (deceased no.2). Krishan Kant
Verma and Banarasi died at the spot. PW-1 and other persons
present there caught Ravindra and snatched his rifle which broke
down. However, all three accused managed to escape.
FIR and investigative steps
3
6. First Information Report of the incident was lodged at 10.30
PM on the same day, i.e., on 20.10.2004 naming all the three
accused. The broken rifle seized was handed over vide seizure
memo Ex. Ka-2; and one magazine of 0.315 bore, with one empty
cartridge, was lifted from the spot, vide seizure memo Ex. Ka-18.
Samples of blood-stained earth and plain earth were lifted from the
spot vide Ex. Ka-17. Inquest proceedings of the two deceased were
3
FIR
Page 3 of 24
Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2020
carried out and reports thereof were prepared vide Ex. Ka-3 and 4
respectively. The dead bodies of both the deceased were sealed and
sent for autopsy.
Autopsy Reports / Injury reports
7. Injuries found on the body of the two deceased and the
persons injured have been described in paragraphs 5 and 6 of High
Court’s judgment, which are being reproduced below:
“5. The postmortem on the dead bodies of both the
deceased was conducted by PW-11 Dr. G.C.
Maurya on 21.10.2004, and as per postmortem
report Ex. Ka-5, deceased Krishna Kant Verma has
sustained following injuries:
(1) Firearm wound of entry on the scalp right side 2.0
cm x 1.5 cm, brain cavity deep, 2.0 cm above and
post to the right ear lobe. Margin blackened and
inverted.
(2) Firearm wound of exit on the scalp at occipital
area 6.0 cm x 5.0 cm. Margin everted brain matter
protruding out. Lw (i) and (ii) injuries are connected
to each other. Small skin tag in between both
injuries.
As per Autopsy Surgeon, the cause of death of the
deceased was coma as a result of antemortem
injuries.
As per postmortem report, Ex. Ka-6, deceased
Banarasi has sustained following injuries:
(i) Firearm wound of entry on the right side forehead
2.5 cm x 2.0 cm, brain cavity deep, just above the
medial end of right eyebrow. Margin inverted and
blackened.
Page 4 of 24
Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2020
(ii) Firearm wound of exit on the post of occipital area
right side 2.0 cm x 1.5 cm, brain cavity deep, 12.0
cm above the C-7 vertebra. Margin everted. (i) and
(ii) are communicating to each other.
Note: recovered two small metallic pellets from the
brain tissue wound of exit scabbed.
As per Autopsy Surgeon, the cause of death of the
deceased was coma as a result of antemortem
injuries. Time of death was stated about one day.
6. The injured persons were medically examined by
PW-14, Dr. V.K. Gupta. As per the MLC Ex. Ka-9,
injured Vimlesh Kumar Dubey ( PW-2 ) sustained
following injuries:
(i) Lacerated wound on chin, size 3.0 cm x 0.7 cm x
skin deep, blackening present around it.
(ii) Firearm wound of entry on left side clavicular
fossa size 1.0 cm x 0.8 cm x depth kept under
observation, blackening present, margin inverted
colour red soft scabbed.
(iii) Firearm wound of exit on just side clavicle (outer
side), size 1.5 cm x 2.0 cm x depth kept under
observation, margin everted, colour red soft.
(iv) Firearm wound of entry on left side posterior
axillary fold below arm, size 0.7 cm x 1.0 cm, colour
red with blackening around it depth kept under
observation, margin inverted.
(v) Firearm wound of exit size 1.0 cm x 1.5 cm x
depth kept under observation colour red soft
scabbed margin everted.
(vi) Multiple tiny abrasions on lateral aspect left side
arm lateral armpit size 2 mm diameter to 4 mm
diameter blackening present.
Opinion: Above injuries no. 1 and 6 are simple, rest
are kept under observation, all are due to some
firearm, duration fresh, admitted and refer to
surgeon.
Page 5 of 24
Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2020
As per MLC Ex. Ka-8, injured Anugrah Narayan
Singh ( PW-1 ) sustained following injuries:
(i) Tiny lacerated wound on anterior aspect of 6 cm
above from wrist joint bleeding present.
(ii) Deep abrasion on medial aspect of right arm size x
5.0 cm x 1.0 cm colour red blackening present around
it.
Injury no. 1 is kept under observation, injury no. 2 is
simple both are due to some firearm, duration fresh.
As per MLC Ex. Ka-12, injured Umesh Kumar
Thakur ( PW-3 ) sustained following injuries:
(i) Firearm wound of entry on eyebrow right side size
0.5 mm diameter margin inverted blackening present
around it, colour red soft scabbed.
(ii) Firearm on left side deltoid region, size 3 mm
diameter, colour red, blackening present around it.
Opinion: Above injuries are kept under observation,
refer to eye surgeon caused by some firearm weapon,
duration fresh.
As per MLC Ex. Ka-13, injured Harendra Kumar
Yadav ( PW-10 ) sustained following injuries:
(i) Firearm wound of entry on upper lip, size 1.0 cm
diameter, margin inverted blackening present around
it bleeding.
Opinion: Above injury is kept under observation
caused by firearm, duration fresh.
As per MLC Ex. Ka-11, injured Mritunjay Yadav ( PW-
7 ) sustained following injuries:
(i) Lacerated wound on right side parietal eminence of
skull, size 6 cm x 3 cm, colour red, soft scabbed,
blackening around it.
(ii) Back pain over right side scapula region.
Opinion: Above injury no. 1 is kept under observation
caused by some firearm, duration fresh.”
Page 6 of 24
Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2020
Evidence
8. During trial, prosecution examined PW-1 (Anugrah Narain
Singh-informant), PW-2 (Vimlesh Kumar Dubey), PW-3 (Umesh
Kumar Thakur), PW-4 (Mahesh Verma), PW-5 (Venkat Raman
Pratap Singh), PW-6 (Shivanand Verma), PW-7 (Mritunjay Kumar
Yadav), PW-8 (Devanand Singh), PW-9 (Janak Singh), PW-10
(Harendra Kumar Yadav) as eye witnesses of the incident. PW-11
(Dr. G.C. Maurya) was the autopsy surgeon who had prepared the
autopsy reports of the two deceased; PW-12 (Dilip Kumar Ojha)
prepared the G.D. Entry of the FIR. However, PW-12, during cross-
examination, admitted: (a) that he did not prepare any letter for
medical examination of the informant (i.e., PW-1); (b) that he does
not remember whether he could notice any injury on the body of
the informant at the time of registering the FIR; (c) that the rifle
which was deposited at the Police Station was without its
magazine; and (d) that at the time of registering the FIR, no other
injured person was present along with the informant.
9. PW-13 (Manoj Singh) was examined as an inquest witness,
however, he was declared hostile. PW-14 (Dr. V.K. Gupta) was
examined to prove the Medical Examination Report of the injured
persons.
Page 7 of 24
Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2020
10. PW-15 (M.P. Singh, Sub-Inspector of Police) was examined to
prove the investigation papers. He stated, (a) that the investigation
was started by Sub-Inspector Murahu Singh ( who was not
examined ), at that time, he was not present; (b) that he took over
the investigation of the case on 22.10.2004; (c) that the magazine
012027 was produced in court by the defence, which bears the
same number as is inscribed on the rifle; (d) that electricity was not
available at the site; (e) that PW-1 has criminal history; and (f) that
no blood-stained cloth of PW-1 was recovered.
11. What is important to note is that except PW-1 no other eye
witness examined by the prosecution supported the prosecution
case.
12. PW-2 stated that though he was present at the time of
incident, electricity, which was from a generator, went off,
therefore, in absence of light, he could not see how persons got
injured. He also stated that though he suffered injuries, he could
not notice whether the rifle was seized from the accused.
13. Similar is the statement of PW-3. He stated that when he was
hit by a gun-shot he fell unconscious. PW-3 was declared hostile
by the prosecution and was confronted with his previous
Page 8 of 24
Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2020
statement. During cross-examination, he stated that a pellet had
struck him while he was running.
14. PW-4, who was examined as an eye witness as well as a
witness to the inquest proceeding, though accepted his signature
on the inquest report, stated that he was not present at the time of
the incident. Rather, he arrived after the incident had occurred. He
too was declared hostile by the prosecution.
15. PW-5, who was produced as an eye witness and as a witness
of seizure of the rifle, denied his presence at the spot at the time of
occurrence. He admitted his signature on the memo regarding
handing over of the rifle, but clarified that the Investigation Officer
had called him 5-6 days after the incident to get his signature on a
paper. He also denied that the rifle was sealed in his presence.
16. PW-6, who was also produced as an eye witness as well as a
witness to the inquest report, denied his presence at the time of
occurrence. He was, accordingly, declared hostile. However, he
admitted his signature on the inquest report.
17. PW-7 was produced as an eye witness. He admitted his
presence on the date and time of occurrence, but stated that when
the firing started it was dark and, therefore, he could not notice as
Page 9 of 24
Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2020
to who fired the shots. Consequently, he too was declared hostile
and was cross-examined by the prosecution. During cross-
examination, he denied the suggestion that at the time of
occurrence there was light from the generator.
18. PW-8 was produced as an eye witness. However, he denied
his presence at the spot at the time of occurrence. Consequently,
he too was declared hostile by the prosecution.
19. PW-9, who was produced as an eye witness as well as a
witness to the seizure of the rifle, denied his presence at the spot
at the time of occurrence and stated that since 4-5 months before
the incident he had been in Punjab and he returned one year after
the incident. Prosecution declared him hostile and cross-examined
him to prove the memo qua handing over of the rifle (Ex. Ka-2). PW-
9, however, denied his signature on Ex. Ka-2.
20. PW-10 stated that the pandal and the generator for the drama
play was organised by him and that one of the deceased, namely,
Banarasi was his employee. He stated that the incident occurred
at 09:30 PM, but who exhorted, and who fired, he could not
recognise. He admitted that he was injured in the incident. The
prosecution declared him hostile and cross-examined him. During
cross-examination by the prosecution, he admitted that he saw
Page 10 of 24
Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2020
PW-1 at the spot. During cross-examination by the defence, PW-10
stated that at the time when gun-shots were fired, the lights were
off.
21. Accused claimed false implication on account of village
politics and also claimed that rifle was picked up by police from
home. However, the Trial Court as well as the High Court convicted
the appellants by relying on the testimony of PW-1.
22. We have heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar for the appellant; and Miss
Srishti Singh for the State.
Submissions on behalf of the Appellant
23. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the
prosecution case rests on the ocular account of PW-1. Testimony
of PW-1 is not of such a stellar quality as may form the sole basis
of conviction, particularly, when other persons, who were
admittedly injured in the incident, have narrated that at the time
of occurrence, lights were off. Even otherwise, the prosecution story
does not inspire confidence because there appears no reason for
the accused to indulge in indiscriminate firing to cause injuries to
several persons more so, when, as per PW-1, he was the only one
targeted. It was also argued that the prosecution had failed to prove
Page 11 of 24
Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2020
that rifle was seized from Ravindra by persons present at the spot
inasmuch witnesses of the weapon handing over memo have not
supported the prosecution case and, admittedly, the rifle was
without its magazine. Besides, the magazine, which was later lifted
from the spot, was not of the seized rifle. Even the empty cartridge
lifted from the spot did not match with the firing pin of the seized
rifle. In such circumstances, there were too many loopholes in the
prosecution story and therefore, conviction was not sustainable on
the testimony of a solitary eye witness. Additionally, it was argued,
the injuries on the body of PW-1 appear superficial. Moreover, he
was not medically examined through police. Further, the person
who made G.D. entry of the FIR had deposed that he could not
remember noticing any injury on the body of PW-1. Besides, no
blood-stained cloth of PW-1 was recovered. All these circumstances
indicate that the incident did not occur in the manner alleged; the
prosecution was hiding the truth; and PW-1 was not a reliable
witness. Even otherwise, the prosecution story is difficult to accept
inasmuch as if rifle of Ravindra could be snatched by persons
present in the pandal how could all three accused, who were left
with hardly any weapon, manage to escape. It, therefore, appears
probable, as deposed by other witnesses, that the incident occurred
Page 12 of 24
Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2020
in the darkness of night and after indiscriminate firing, the
assailants managed to escape. Additionally, it was submitted that
the first Investigating Officer was not examined to corroborate the
prosecution case. In such circumstances, it was argued, the benefit
of doubt ought to have been given to the appellant. Further, it was
submitted, the testimony of PW-1 is uninspiring because if he was
the one whom assailants targeted, it is inexplicable as to how he
could escape unscathed or with negligible injury and others,
against whom there existed no motive, suffered multiple injuries.
All of this would indicate that the incident did not occur in the
manner alleged.
Submissions on behalf of the State
24. Per contra , on behalf of the State, it was argued that all
witnesses examined were consistent on two aspects. One, the time
of occurrence and two, the place of occurrence. FIR, at the instance
of PW-1, is prompt and names all the three accused. The witnesses,
though may have been declared hostile, have not caused any doubt
regarding the place and time of the incident. Further, they have not
denied the presence of PW-1 at the spot and at the time of
occurrence of the incident. Moreover, PW-1 had received injuries,
therefore his presence cannot be doubted. In such circumstances,
Page 13 of 24
Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2020
though other witnesses might have turned hostile, for reasons best
known to them, they have not damaged the substratum of the
testimony of PW-1. In so far as PW-1 is concerned, his testimony
as regards participation of the appellant in the incident could not
be shaken during cross-examination, therefore, the Trial Court as
well as the High Court were justified in relying on his testimony to
record conviction. Besides, FIR was so prompt that there was no
time for PW-1 to contrive a story to falsely implicate the accused.
Further, there is no material to suggest that the FIR was not lodged
on the date and time as it is purported to have been lodged. In so
far as seizure of the rifle is concerned, the FIR recites about it,
therefore, there can be no shadow of doubt about the involvement
of the accused in the crime. Based on above, it was prayed that the
appeal should be dismissed.
Analysis
25. We have considered the rival submissions and have perused
the record carefully.
26. Before we proceed to assess the correctness of the impugned
judgment, we must note that PW-1 is the informant and a person
who received some injury, therefore, his presence at the scene of
crime was accepted by the courts below. However, there were other
Page 14 of 24
Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2020
persons also who had received injuries, and much more than PW-
1, but they have claimed that at the time of occurrence lights went
off and, therefore, they could not notice as to who fired the shots.
Admittedly, the supply of electricity at the pandal, where the drama
play was organised, was through a generator. Interestingly, the
generator operator got killed in the incident. Whether he got killed
accidentally in a large-scale firing or was targeted was a question
to ponder. Because, if he was targeted, the assailants might be
interested in hiding their identity. The best way to ensure darkness
is to switch off lights, and where supply of electricity is from a
generator to switch it off. Notably, witnesses other than PW-1 are
consistent that lights went off at the time of firing. In such
circumstances, a close scrutiny of PW-1’s testimony was required
to test whether it can form the sole basis of conviction of the
remaining two accused (i.e., the appellants). Importantly, accused
no.3 to whom the role of exhortation was attributed has already
been given the benefit of doubt by the High Court. Insofar as
Ravindra is concerned, his rifle was seized. Such seizure may
corroborate his presence at the scene of crime. However, during
pendency of this appeal he died, therefore, we are not dealing with
his appeal as it stood abated. In the aforesaid context, we would
Page 15 of 24
Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2020
consider whether the testimony of PW-1 inspires confidence, and
whether it is sufficiently corroborated from other circumstances
proven on record, so as to form the sole basis of conviction of
appellant Anjani.
27. PW-1 deposed that around 8.30 PM while his son was
watching the drama play, sitting on the front seat beneath the
pandal, Anjani came and slapped his son. PW-1 objected to it, as a
result, Anjani got annoyed and went away. Thereafter, at around
9.00 PM, Anjani Singh, with country made pistol, his brother
Ravindra, with his licensed rifle, and Rishab, with lathi, came and
exhorted each other to kill PW-1. Upon which, Ravindra fired from
his rifle. The bullet struck PW-1. Firing continued and several
others, namely, Harendra Yadav, Mrityunjay Yadav, Vimlesh
Kumar Dube, Umesh Kumar Thakur, Krishna Kumar Verma (i.e.
the first deceased) and Banarasi (i.e., the second deceased-
generator operator) were hit by bullets. Krishna Kumar Verma and
Banarasi died on spot and there was complete commotion and
stampede. In that melee, PW-1 and others snatched the rifle from
Ravindra. The wooden handle of the rifle broke and barrel got
twisted. However, all three accused could manage to escape while
firing shots from the pistol held by Anjani. Thereafter, PW-1,
Page 16 of 24
Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2020
Venkataraman (PW-5) and Janak Singh (PW-9) were taken on a car
to the police station where he lodged the FIR. Those who got injured
were taken to Sadar Hospital. PW-1 proved the written report (Ext.-
1) and the memo (Ext.A2) by which the rifle was handed over to the
police. PW-1 further deposed that after visiting the police station,
he went to Sadar Hospital and from there came back home and
then again went to the place of occurrence to show the crime scene
to the police.
28. During cross-examination, PW-1 deposed that he went for his
medical examination alone, police did not accompany him. He also
admitted that he was an accused in the murder of Horam Rajbhar
and that a case under Section 25 Arms Act is pending against him.
He further admitted of being implicated under the Goondas Act (at
places it is mentioned Gangsters Act) in the year 2004.
29. On being questioned, PW-1 described the incident by first
stating that the accused fired shots at him while he was sitting
towards western side of the pandal. He stated that shots were fired
from one spot, east of the place where he was sitting. He then
stated that when bullets were fired he was sitting in the enclosure,
3-4 steps from the drama stage platform. Many people were sitting
around him and 5-10 people were sitting in front of him. Then he
Page 17 of 24
Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2020
stated that firing was done from the west side of the enclosure tent
and that the distance between firing spot and drama platform may
be about 7-8 steps. Later, he stated that no firing was done from
the west side of the tent. However, when it was pointed out to him
that police had shown that firing was done from the west side of
tent, he retracted his statement and stated that it is correct that
firing was done from the west side.
30. Thereafter, PW-1 stated that as soon as firing started, he
could gather that shots were aimed at him. He stated that there
was a distance of 3-4 steps between him and the accused when the
accused had fired seeing him. Later, he said that when firing was
done at him, he along with others had caught the assailant. Then
he clarified that accused (i.e., Ravindra) was caught after he had
fired shots from his rifle. Whereafter, he stated that: “ at that time,
the accused who was having the country made pistol, did not fire at
the people who were catching the person who was firing from the
rifle. ” Then PW-1 stated that it took 15-20 minutes to snatch the
rifle. However, later, he stated that rifle was snatched by PW-5 and
PW-9 (Note: PW-5 and PW-9 have not supported this fact) . As
regards the role of Anjani, PW-1 deposed that “
when snatching etc
was taking place, at that time, Anjani Singh had not fired at people
Page 18 of 24
Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2020
involved in the snatching. Nobody tried to apprehend Anjani at the
site of the incident ”.
31. During cross-examination on 20.04.2006, PW-1 deposed:
“before opening fire, the persons who opened fire came and sat
beside me, where I was sitting inside the pandal. They were at a
distance of 3-4 steps from me and surrounded me and opened gun-
shot at me. He added : “I cannot say how many gunshots were fired
using country made pistol (katta). …On occurrence of firing, I ran
here and there and fell down. I fell down in front of temple ..”
32. On 20.04.2006, PW-1 admitted that he had been booked
under Goondas Act (at some place it is Gangster Act) twice, though
he was acquitted.
33. When we go through the statement of PW-1, the only
eyewitness who supported the prosecution case, we notice that (a)
he has not been consistent with regard to the place from where
shots were fired; (b) his testimony regarding the role played by
Anjani (appellant no.1) in the shoot-out is not specific; (c) at one
point, he states that the two accused fired shots from one spot and
later he stated that accused had surrounded him and several
rounds were fired at him though he could escape by ducking; (d)
he gives no explanation as to why indiscriminate firing was
Page 19 of 24
Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2020
resorted to when he was the sole target and was in close proximity
to the assailants; (e) he categorically stated that Anjani fired no
shot when rifle of his brother was being snatched; besides, no one
tried to apprehend Anjani or snatch his pistol.
34. In our assessment, besides being a person with criminal
antecedents, PW-1’s wavering testimony does not inspire our
confidence for several reasons, namely, (a) motive for the crime,
though flimsy, was qua PW-1 yet, despite the assailants being
nearby, PW-1, suffered no grievous injury; (b) there is no
explanation for indiscriminate shootout killing two innocent
persons against whom no motive is shown; (c) those who have been
killed were shot from close range (Note: blackening found present at
the margin of entry wounds) , therefore it can be taken that they did
not suffer gunshots accidentally; (d) though firing by Ravindra from
rifle is specifically alleged, firing of shots from pistol by Anjani to
target any particular person is not specifically alleged, rather the
testimony is to the effect that Anjani did not fire any shot at those
who were trying to snatch his brother’s rifle; and (e) PW-1’s injury
appears superficial; further, if he had suffered injury he would have
been taken to hospital like others. Therefore, in our view, PW-1’s
testimony is not of that stellar quality as to form the sole basis of
Page 20 of 24
Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2020
conviction of Anjani, particularly, when other injured witnesses,
who were examined by the prosecution, had disclosed that at the
time of indiscriminate firing light was off. Besides that, if the
licensed rifle of Ravindra could be snatched, it is difficult to believe
as to how a person with just a country made pistol, which,
ordinarily, is a single shot weapon, would be able to escape along
with two others who were rendered weapon less as against an
infuriated crowd of more than 100 people.
35. Besides above, though, according to the prosecution, broken
rifle was handed over to the police on the same day i.e., the date of
the incident, during investigation, a magazine of a rifle, with one
empty cartridge was recovered from the spot. Admittedly, the
seized rifle was without its magazine and the magazine was in
possession of the license holder. What is important is that the
magazine recovered from the spot, could not be forensically
connected with the seized rifle. Insofar as the country made pistol,
alleged to be with Anjani Singh, is concerned, the same could not
be recovered during investigation. No doubt, one may argue that in
the process of snatching the rifle, the magazine of the rifle may
have got detached from the rifle and, therefore, it remained with
Ravindra. But we must not ignore that presence of another
Page 21 of 24
Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2020
magazine at the spot would suggest use of another weapon. Who
used that weapon is not clear from the prosecution case. In these
circumstances, when we take notice of the testimony of PW-1 that
he was surrounded and shots were fired from all around, coupled
with the fact that many persons got injured, it appears to be a case
where several attackers with firearms had opened fire. Thus, in any
event, the incident did not occur in the manner as alleged by the
prosecution, and the prosecution appears not to be coming out
with the truth.
36. In light of the discussion above, taking into consideration all
aspects of the matter and, more particularly, having regard to the
following: (a) that there were multiple persons injured in the
incident, yet, except PW-1, no one supported the prosecution case
qua the appellants; (b) that in PW-1’s testimony the role played by
Anjani in the shoot-out is not specific besides, it does not inspire
confidence for the reasons recorded above; (c) that rifle magazine
recovered from the spot did not match with the seized rifle, which
had no magazine, and the magazine of the weapon was produced
by its licensed holder, giving rise to a doubt whether the rifle used
in the crime was of Ravindra, or there was some other weapon
used, or some other person was involved in the crime; (d) that the
Page 22 of 24
Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2020
accused held no motive to kill the two deceased; and (e) that only
one empty cartridge was found at the spot which did not
forensically connect with the rifle seized from Ravindra, we are of
the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case
beyond reasonable doubt.
37. Another feature of the case which requires mention is that the
gun shot injuries found on the body of the two deceased disclosed
blackening at the margins of the entry wound suggesting that shots
were fired from close range. If shots were fired from a close range,
why would a person kill two innocent people against whom there
is no motive. This throws doubt on the theory propounded by the
prosecution that gunshots were aimed at someone else but by
chance they hit the two deceased. Whether those persons were
targeted, if so, by whom, or were victim of indiscriminate firing, is
not easy to decipher from the prosecution evidence. Moreover, the
aforesaid circumstances lend credence to the testimony of other
witnesses that at the time of occurrence lights went off. More so,
when one of the two deceased was a generator operator.
38. In such circumstances, taking a conspectus of the entire
evidence as also the fact that all eye witnesses, except PW-1, have
not supported the prosecution case and have consistently deposed
Page 23 of 24
Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2020
about there being no light at the time of occurrence, in our view, it
was a fit case where the benefit of doubt ought to have been
extended to the appellant (Anjani) by the courts below.
Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order
convicting the appellant (Anjani) is set aside. The appellant Anjani
shall stand acquitted of the charges for which he was tried. It is
observed that Anjani was released on bail during the pendency of
this appeal. Consequently, his bail bonds are discharged.
39. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
……………………………J
( MANOJ MISRA)
……………………………J
(JOYMALYA BAGCHI)
NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 5, 2026
Page 24 of 24
Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2020
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2026 INSC 3
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 591 OF 2020
ANJANI SINGH …APPELLANT(S)
Versus
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
MANOJ MISRA, J.
1. This appeal arises from judgment and order of the High Court
1
of Judicature at Allahabad dated 05.07.2019 passed in Criminal
Appeal No. 8133 of 2007.
Facts
2. Three persons, namely, Anjani Singh (Appellant No. 1),
Ravindra Singh (Appellant No. 2) and Rishabh Dev Singh were tried
in Sessions Trial No. 28 of 2005 for offences punishable under
2
Sections 302/34, 307/34 and 504 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 . All
three were convicted by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
KAVITA PAHUJA
Date: 2026.01.05
15:53:17 IST
Reason:
1
The High Court
2
IPC
Page 1 of 24
Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2020
Court No. 1, Ballia (in short the Trial Court). Appellant Nos. 1 and
2 were convicted under Sections 302, 307 and 504 of IPC, whereas
Rishabh Dev Singh was convicted under Sections 302/34, 307/34
and 504 of IPC.
3. On appeal to the High Court, Rishabh Dev Singh (for short
Rishab) was acquitted whereas conviction of Anjani Singh (for short
Anjani) and Ravindra Singh (for short Ravindra) was affirmed vide
the impugned order.
4. Aggrieved by affirmation of their conviction, this appeal has
been filed. During pendency of this appeal, Appellant No. 2 i.e.,
Ravindra passed away and, therefore, his appeal abated vide order
dated 07.08.2025. The present appeal survives qua Anjani alone.
Prosecution case
5. The prosecution case in a nutshell is that on 20.10.2004, a
function for establishment of Durga idol was held at the village. To
celebrate the occasion, a drama play was arranged and held
beneath a pandal. Informant’s (PW-1’s) son, aged about 10 years,
was amongst the audience, sitting in the front row. During drama
play, Anjani started beating PW-1’s son. When PW-1 objected to
it, Anjani got infuriated and left the scene. Thereafter, at around
Page 2 of 24
Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2020
09:00 PM, Anjani, with a country made pistol in his hand, Ravindra
i.e., Anjani’s brother, with a licensed rifle, and their father Rishabh,
with a lathi, came and exhorted each other to kill PW-1.
Whereafter, Ravindra and Anjani started firing from their
respective weapons causing firearm injuries to PW-1, Harendra
Kumar Yadav (PW-10), Mritunjay Kumar Yadav (PW-7), Vimlesh
Dubey (PW-2), Umesh Kumar Thakur (PW-3), Krishna Kant Verma
(deceased no.1) and Banarasi (deceased no.2). Krishan Kant
Verma and Banarasi died at the spot. PW-1 and other persons
present there caught Ravindra and snatched his rifle which broke
down. However, all three accused managed to escape.
FIR and investigative steps
3
6. First Information Report of the incident was lodged at 10.30
PM on the same day, i.e., on 20.10.2004 naming all the three
accused. The broken rifle seized was handed over vide seizure
memo Ex. Ka-2; and one magazine of 0.315 bore, with one empty
cartridge, was lifted from the spot, vide seizure memo Ex. Ka-18.
Samples of blood-stained earth and plain earth were lifted from the
spot vide Ex. Ka-17. Inquest proceedings of the two deceased were
3
FIR
Page 3 of 24
Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2020
carried out and reports thereof were prepared vide Ex. Ka-3 and 4
respectively. The dead bodies of both the deceased were sealed and
sent for autopsy.
Autopsy Reports / Injury reports
7. Injuries found on the body of the two deceased and the
persons injured have been described in paragraphs 5 and 6 of High
Court’s judgment, which are being reproduced below:
“5. The postmortem on the dead bodies of both the
deceased was conducted by PW-11 Dr. G.C.
Maurya on 21.10.2004, and as per postmortem
report Ex. Ka-5, deceased Krishna Kant Verma has
sustained following injuries:
(1) Firearm wound of entry on the scalp right side 2.0
cm x 1.5 cm, brain cavity deep, 2.0 cm above and
post to the right ear lobe. Margin blackened and
inverted.
(2) Firearm wound of exit on the scalp at occipital
area 6.0 cm x 5.0 cm. Margin everted brain matter
protruding out. Lw (i) and (ii) injuries are connected
to each other. Small skin tag in between both
injuries.
As per Autopsy Surgeon, the cause of death of the
deceased was coma as a result of antemortem
injuries.
As per postmortem report, Ex. Ka-6, deceased
Banarasi has sustained following injuries:
(i) Firearm wound of entry on the right side forehead
2.5 cm x 2.0 cm, brain cavity deep, just above the
medial end of right eyebrow. Margin inverted and
blackened.
Page 4 of 24
Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2020
(ii) Firearm wound of exit on the post of occipital area
right side 2.0 cm x 1.5 cm, brain cavity deep, 12.0
cm above the C-7 vertebra. Margin everted. (i) and
(ii) are communicating to each other.
Note: recovered two small metallic pellets from the
brain tissue wound of exit scabbed.
As per Autopsy Surgeon, the cause of death of the
deceased was coma as a result of antemortem
injuries. Time of death was stated about one day.
6. The injured persons were medically examined by
PW-14, Dr. V.K. Gupta. As per the MLC Ex. Ka-9,
injured Vimlesh Kumar Dubey ( PW-2 ) sustained
following injuries:
(i) Lacerated wound on chin, size 3.0 cm x 0.7 cm x
skin deep, blackening present around it.
(ii) Firearm wound of entry on left side clavicular
fossa size 1.0 cm x 0.8 cm x depth kept under
observation, blackening present, margin inverted
colour red soft scabbed.
(iii) Firearm wound of exit on just side clavicle (outer
side), size 1.5 cm x 2.0 cm x depth kept under
observation, margin everted, colour red soft.
(iv) Firearm wound of entry on left side posterior
axillary fold below arm, size 0.7 cm x 1.0 cm, colour
red with blackening around it depth kept under
observation, margin inverted.
(v) Firearm wound of exit size 1.0 cm x 1.5 cm x
depth kept under observation colour red soft
scabbed margin everted.
(vi) Multiple tiny abrasions on lateral aspect left side
arm lateral armpit size 2 mm diameter to 4 mm
diameter blackening present.
Opinion: Above injuries no. 1 and 6 are simple, rest
are kept under observation, all are due to some
firearm, duration fresh, admitted and refer to
surgeon.
Page 5 of 24
Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2020
As per MLC Ex. Ka-8, injured Anugrah Narayan
Singh ( PW-1 ) sustained following injuries:
(i) Tiny lacerated wound on anterior aspect of 6 cm
above from wrist joint bleeding present.
(ii) Deep abrasion on medial aspect of right arm size x
5.0 cm x 1.0 cm colour red blackening present around
it.
Injury no. 1 is kept under observation, injury no. 2 is
simple both are due to some firearm, duration fresh.
As per MLC Ex. Ka-12, injured Umesh Kumar
Thakur ( PW-3 ) sustained following injuries:
(i) Firearm wound of entry on eyebrow right side size
0.5 mm diameter margin inverted blackening present
around it, colour red soft scabbed.
(ii) Firearm on left side deltoid region, size 3 mm
diameter, colour red, blackening present around it.
Opinion: Above injuries are kept under observation,
refer to eye surgeon caused by some firearm weapon,
duration fresh.
As per MLC Ex. Ka-13, injured Harendra Kumar
Yadav ( PW-10 ) sustained following injuries:
(i) Firearm wound of entry on upper lip, size 1.0 cm
diameter, margin inverted blackening present around
it bleeding.
Opinion: Above injury is kept under observation
caused by firearm, duration fresh.
As per MLC Ex. Ka-11, injured Mritunjay Yadav ( PW-
7 ) sustained following injuries:
(i) Lacerated wound on right side parietal eminence of
skull, size 6 cm x 3 cm, colour red, soft scabbed,
blackening around it.
(ii) Back pain over right side scapula region.
Opinion: Above injury no. 1 is kept under observation
caused by some firearm, duration fresh.”
Page 6 of 24
Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2020
Evidence
8. During trial, prosecution examined PW-1 (Anugrah Narain
Singh-informant), PW-2 (Vimlesh Kumar Dubey), PW-3 (Umesh
Kumar Thakur), PW-4 (Mahesh Verma), PW-5 (Venkat Raman
Pratap Singh), PW-6 (Shivanand Verma), PW-7 (Mritunjay Kumar
Yadav), PW-8 (Devanand Singh), PW-9 (Janak Singh), PW-10
(Harendra Kumar Yadav) as eye witnesses of the incident. PW-11
(Dr. G.C. Maurya) was the autopsy surgeon who had prepared the
autopsy reports of the two deceased; PW-12 (Dilip Kumar Ojha)
prepared the G.D. Entry of the FIR. However, PW-12, during cross-
examination, admitted: (a) that he did not prepare any letter for
medical examination of the informant (i.e., PW-1); (b) that he does
not remember whether he could notice any injury on the body of
the informant at the time of registering the FIR; (c) that the rifle
which was deposited at the Police Station was without its
magazine; and (d) that at the time of registering the FIR, no other
injured person was present along with the informant.
9. PW-13 (Manoj Singh) was examined as an inquest witness,
however, he was declared hostile. PW-14 (Dr. V.K. Gupta) was
examined to prove the Medical Examination Report of the injured
persons.
Page 7 of 24
Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2020
10. PW-15 (M.P. Singh, Sub-Inspector of Police) was examined to
prove the investigation papers. He stated, (a) that the investigation
was started by Sub-Inspector Murahu Singh ( who was not
examined ), at that time, he was not present; (b) that he took over
the investigation of the case on 22.10.2004; (c) that the magazine
012027 was produced in court by the defence, which bears the
same number as is inscribed on the rifle; (d) that electricity was not
available at the site; (e) that PW-1 has criminal history; and (f) that
no blood-stained cloth of PW-1 was recovered.
11. What is important to note is that except PW-1 no other eye
witness examined by the prosecution supported the prosecution
case.
12. PW-2 stated that though he was present at the time of
incident, electricity, which was from a generator, went off,
therefore, in absence of light, he could not see how persons got
injured. He also stated that though he suffered injuries, he could
not notice whether the rifle was seized from the accused.
13. Similar is the statement of PW-3. He stated that when he was
hit by a gun-shot he fell unconscious. PW-3 was declared hostile
by the prosecution and was confronted with his previous
Page 8 of 24
Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2020
statement. During cross-examination, he stated that a pellet had
struck him while he was running.
14. PW-4, who was examined as an eye witness as well as a
witness to the inquest proceeding, though accepted his signature
on the inquest report, stated that he was not present at the time of
the incident. Rather, he arrived after the incident had occurred. He
too was declared hostile by the prosecution.
15. PW-5, who was produced as an eye witness and as a witness
of seizure of the rifle, denied his presence at the spot at the time of
occurrence. He admitted his signature on the memo regarding
handing over of the rifle, but clarified that the Investigation Officer
had called him 5-6 days after the incident to get his signature on a
paper. He also denied that the rifle was sealed in his presence.
16. PW-6, who was also produced as an eye witness as well as a
witness to the inquest report, denied his presence at the time of
occurrence. He was, accordingly, declared hostile. However, he
admitted his signature on the inquest report.
17. PW-7 was produced as an eye witness. He admitted his
presence on the date and time of occurrence, but stated that when
the firing started it was dark and, therefore, he could not notice as
Page 9 of 24
Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2020
to who fired the shots. Consequently, he too was declared hostile
and was cross-examined by the prosecution. During cross-
examination, he denied the suggestion that at the time of
occurrence there was light from the generator.
18. PW-8 was produced as an eye witness. However, he denied
his presence at the spot at the time of occurrence. Consequently,
he too was declared hostile by the prosecution.
19. PW-9, who was produced as an eye witness as well as a
witness to the seizure of the rifle, denied his presence at the spot
at the time of occurrence and stated that since 4-5 months before
the incident he had been in Punjab and he returned one year after
the incident. Prosecution declared him hostile and cross-examined
him to prove the memo qua handing over of the rifle (Ex. Ka-2). PW-
9, however, denied his signature on Ex. Ka-2.
20. PW-10 stated that the pandal and the generator for the drama
play was organised by him and that one of the deceased, namely,
Banarasi was his employee. He stated that the incident occurred
at 09:30 PM, but who exhorted, and who fired, he could not
recognise. He admitted that he was injured in the incident. The
prosecution declared him hostile and cross-examined him. During
cross-examination by the prosecution, he admitted that he saw
Page 10 of 24
Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2020
PW-1 at the spot. During cross-examination by the defence, PW-10
stated that at the time when gun-shots were fired, the lights were
off.
21. Accused claimed false implication on account of village
politics and also claimed that rifle was picked up by police from
home. However, the Trial Court as well as the High Court convicted
the appellants by relying on the testimony of PW-1.
22. We have heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar for the appellant; and Miss
Srishti Singh for the State.
Submissions on behalf of the Appellant
23. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the
prosecution case rests on the ocular account of PW-1. Testimony
of PW-1 is not of such a stellar quality as may form the sole basis
of conviction, particularly, when other persons, who were
admittedly injured in the incident, have narrated that at the time
of occurrence, lights were off. Even otherwise, the prosecution story
does not inspire confidence because there appears no reason for
the accused to indulge in indiscriminate firing to cause injuries to
several persons more so, when, as per PW-1, he was the only one
targeted. It was also argued that the prosecution had failed to prove
Page 11 of 24
Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2020
that rifle was seized from Ravindra by persons present at the spot
inasmuch witnesses of the weapon handing over memo have not
supported the prosecution case and, admittedly, the rifle was
without its magazine. Besides, the magazine, which was later lifted
from the spot, was not of the seized rifle. Even the empty cartridge
lifted from the spot did not match with the firing pin of the seized
rifle. In such circumstances, there were too many loopholes in the
prosecution story and therefore, conviction was not sustainable on
the testimony of a solitary eye witness. Additionally, it was argued,
the injuries on the body of PW-1 appear superficial. Moreover, he
was not medically examined through police. Further, the person
who made G.D. entry of the FIR had deposed that he could not
remember noticing any injury on the body of PW-1. Besides, no
blood-stained cloth of PW-1 was recovered. All these circumstances
indicate that the incident did not occur in the manner alleged; the
prosecution was hiding the truth; and PW-1 was not a reliable
witness. Even otherwise, the prosecution story is difficult to accept
inasmuch as if rifle of Ravindra could be snatched by persons
present in the pandal how could all three accused, who were left
with hardly any weapon, manage to escape. It, therefore, appears
probable, as deposed by other witnesses, that the incident occurred
Page 12 of 24
Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2020
in the darkness of night and after indiscriminate firing, the
assailants managed to escape. Additionally, it was submitted that
the first Investigating Officer was not examined to corroborate the
prosecution case. In such circumstances, it was argued, the benefit
of doubt ought to have been given to the appellant. Further, it was
submitted, the testimony of PW-1 is uninspiring because if he was
the one whom assailants targeted, it is inexplicable as to how he
could escape unscathed or with negligible injury and others,
against whom there existed no motive, suffered multiple injuries.
All of this would indicate that the incident did not occur in the
manner alleged.
Submissions on behalf of the State
24. Per contra , on behalf of the State, it was argued that all
witnesses examined were consistent on two aspects. One, the time
of occurrence and two, the place of occurrence. FIR, at the instance
of PW-1, is prompt and names all the three accused. The witnesses,
though may have been declared hostile, have not caused any doubt
regarding the place and time of the incident. Further, they have not
denied the presence of PW-1 at the spot and at the time of
occurrence of the incident. Moreover, PW-1 had received injuries,
therefore his presence cannot be doubted. In such circumstances,
Page 13 of 24
Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2020
though other witnesses might have turned hostile, for reasons best
known to them, they have not damaged the substratum of the
testimony of PW-1. In so far as PW-1 is concerned, his testimony
as regards participation of the appellant in the incident could not
be shaken during cross-examination, therefore, the Trial Court as
well as the High Court were justified in relying on his testimony to
record conviction. Besides, FIR was so prompt that there was no
time for PW-1 to contrive a story to falsely implicate the accused.
Further, there is no material to suggest that the FIR was not lodged
on the date and time as it is purported to have been lodged. In so
far as seizure of the rifle is concerned, the FIR recites about it,
therefore, there can be no shadow of doubt about the involvement
of the accused in the crime. Based on above, it was prayed that the
appeal should be dismissed.
Analysis
25. We have considered the rival submissions and have perused
the record carefully.
26. Before we proceed to assess the correctness of the impugned
judgment, we must note that PW-1 is the informant and a person
who received some injury, therefore, his presence at the scene of
crime was accepted by the courts below. However, there were other
Page 14 of 24
Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2020
persons also who had received injuries, and much more than PW-
1, but they have claimed that at the time of occurrence lights went
off and, therefore, they could not notice as to who fired the shots.
Admittedly, the supply of electricity at the pandal, where the drama
play was organised, was through a generator. Interestingly, the
generator operator got killed in the incident. Whether he got killed
accidentally in a large-scale firing or was targeted was a question
to ponder. Because, if he was targeted, the assailants might be
interested in hiding their identity. The best way to ensure darkness
is to switch off lights, and where supply of electricity is from a
generator to switch it off. Notably, witnesses other than PW-1 are
consistent that lights went off at the time of firing. In such
circumstances, a close scrutiny of PW-1’s testimony was required
to test whether it can form the sole basis of conviction of the
remaining two accused (i.e., the appellants). Importantly, accused
no.3 to whom the role of exhortation was attributed has already
been given the benefit of doubt by the High Court. Insofar as
Ravindra is concerned, his rifle was seized. Such seizure may
corroborate his presence at the scene of crime. However, during
pendency of this appeal he died, therefore, we are not dealing with
his appeal as it stood abated. In the aforesaid context, we would
Page 15 of 24
Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2020
consider whether the testimony of PW-1 inspires confidence, and
whether it is sufficiently corroborated from other circumstances
proven on record, so as to form the sole basis of conviction of
appellant Anjani.
27. PW-1 deposed that around 8.30 PM while his son was
watching the drama play, sitting on the front seat beneath the
pandal, Anjani came and slapped his son. PW-1 objected to it, as a
result, Anjani got annoyed and went away. Thereafter, at around
9.00 PM, Anjani Singh, with country made pistol, his brother
Ravindra, with his licensed rifle, and Rishab, with lathi, came and
exhorted each other to kill PW-1. Upon which, Ravindra fired from
his rifle. The bullet struck PW-1. Firing continued and several
others, namely, Harendra Yadav, Mrityunjay Yadav, Vimlesh
Kumar Dube, Umesh Kumar Thakur, Krishna Kumar Verma (i.e.
the first deceased) and Banarasi (i.e., the second deceased-
generator operator) were hit by bullets. Krishna Kumar Verma and
Banarasi died on spot and there was complete commotion and
stampede. In that melee, PW-1 and others snatched the rifle from
Ravindra. The wooden handle of the rifle broke and barrel got
twisted. However, all three accused could manage to escape while
firing shots from the pistol held by Anjani. Thereafter, PW-1,
Page 16 of 24
Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2020
Venkataraman (PW-5) and Janak Singh (PW-9) were taken on a car
to the police station where he lodged the FIR. Those who got injured
were taken to Sadar Hospital. PW-1 proved the written report (Ext.-
1) and the memo (Ext.A2) by which the rifle was handed over to the
police. PW-1 further deposed that after visiting the police station,
he went to Sadar Hospital and from there came back home and
then again went to the place of occurrence to show the crime scene
to the police.
28. During cross-examination, PW-1 deposed that he went for his
medical examination alone, police did not accompany him. He also
admitted that he was an accused in the murder of Horam Rajbhar
and that a case under Section 25 Arms Act is pending against him.
He further admitted of being implicated under the Goondas Act (at
places it is mentioned Gangsters Act) in the year 2004.
29. On being questioned, PW-1 described the incident by first
stating that the accused fired shots at him while he was sitting
towards western side of the pandal. He stated that shots were fired
from one spot, east of the place where he was sitting. He then
stated that when bullets were fired he was sitting in the enclosure,
3-4 steps from the drama stage platform. Many people were sitting
around him and 5-10 people were sitting in front of him. Then he
Page 17 of 24
Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2020
stated that firing was done from the west side of the enclosure tent
and that the distance between firing spot and drama platform may
be about 7-8 steps. Later, he stated that no firing was done from
the west side of the tent. However, when it was pointed out to him
that police had shown that firing was done from the west side of
tent, he retracted his statement and stated that it is correct that
firing was done from the west side.
30. Thereafter, PW-1 stated that as soon as firing started, he
could gather that shots were aimed at him. He stated that there
was a distance of 3-4 steps between him and the accused when the
accused had fired seeing him. Later, he said that when firing was
done at him, he along with others had caught the assailant. Then
he clarified that accused (i.e., Ravindra) was caught after he had
fired shots from his rifle. Whereafter, he stated that: “ at that time,
the accused who was having the country made pistol, did not fire at
the people who were catching the person who was firing from the
rifle. ” Then PW-1 stated that it took 15-20 minutes to snatch the
rifle. However, later, he stated that rifle was snatched by PW-5 and
PW-9 (Note: PW-5 and PW-9 have not supported this fact) . As
regards the role of Anjani, PW-1 deposed that “
when snatching etc
was taking place, at that time, Anjani Singh had not fired at people
Page 18 of 24
Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2020
involved in the snatching. Nobody tried to apprehend Anjani at the
site of the incident ”.
31. During cross-examination on 20.04.2006, PW-1 deposed:
“before opening fire, the persons who opened fire came and sat
beside me, where I was sitting inside the pandal. They were at a
distance of 3-4 steps from me and surrounded me and opened gun-
shot at me. He added : “I cannot say how many gunshots were fired
using country made pistol (katta). …On occurrence of firing, I ran
here and there and fell down. I fell down in front of temple ..”
32. On 20.04.2006, PW-1 admitted that he had been booked
under Goondas Act (at some place it is Gangster Act) twice, though
he was acquitted.
33. When we go through the statement of PW-1, the only
eyewitness who supported the prosecution case, we notice that (a)
he has not been consistent with regard to the place from where
shots were fired; (b) his testimony regarding the role played by
Anjani (appellant no.1) in the shoot-out is not specific; (c) at one
point, he states that the two accused fired shots from one spot and
later he stated that accused had surrounded him and several
rounds were fired at him though he could escape by ducking; (d)
he gives no explanation as to why indiscriminate firing was
Page 19 of 24
Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2020
resorted to when he was the sole target and was in close proximity
to the assailants; (e) he categorically stated that Anjani fired no
shot when rifle of his brother was being snatched; besides, no one
tried to apprehend Anjani or snatch his pistol.
34. In our assessment, besides being a person with criminal
antecedents, PW-1’s wavering testimony does not inspire our
confidence for several reasons, namely, (a) motive for the crime,
though flimsy, was qua PW-1 yet, despite the assailants being
nearby, PW-1, suffered no grievous injury; (b) there is no
explanation for indiscriminate shootout killing two innocent
persons against whom no motive is shown; (c) those who have been
killed were shot from close range (Note: blackening found present at
the margin of entry wounds) , therefore it can be taken that they did
not suffer gunshots accidentally; (d) though firing by Ravindra from
rifle is specifically alleged, firing of shots from pistol by Anjani to
target any particular person is not specifically alleged, rather the
testimony is to the effect that Anjani did not fire any shot at those
who were trying to snatch his brother’s rifle; and (e) PW-1’s injury
appears superficial; further, if he had suffered injury he would have
been taken to hospital like others. Therefore, in our view, PW-1’s
testimony is not of that stellar quality as to form the sole basis of
Page 20 of 24
Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2020
conviction of Anjani, particularly, when other injured witnesses,
who were examined by the prosecution, had disclosed that at the
time of indiscriminate firing light was off. Besides that, if the
licensed rifle of Ravindra could be snatched, it is difficult to believe
as to how a person with just a country made pistol, which,
ordinarily, is a single shot weapon, would be able to escape along
with two others who were rendered weapon less as against an
infuriated crowd of more than 100 people.
35. Besides above, though, according to the prosecution, broken
rifle was handed over to the police on the same day i.e., the date of
the incident, during investigation, a magazine of a rifle, with one
empty cartridge was recovered from the spot. Admittedly, the
seized rifle was without its magazine and the magazine was in
possession of the license holder. What is important is that the
magazine recovered from the spot, could not be forensically
connected with the seized rifle. Insofar as the country made pistol,
alleged to be with Anjani Singh, is concerned, the same could not
be recovered during investigation. No doubt, one may argue that in
the process of snatching the rifle, the magazine of the rifle may
have got detached from the rifle and, therefore, it remained with
Ravindra. But we must not ignore that presence of another
Page 21 of 24
Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2020
magazine at the spot would suggest use of another weapon. Who
used that weapon is not clear from the prosecution case. In these
circumstances, when we take notice of the testimony of PW-1 that
he was surrounded and shots were fired from all around, coupled
with the fact that many persons got injured, it appears to be a case
where several attackers with firearms had opened fire. Thus, in any
event, the incident did not occur in the manner as alleged by the
prosecution, and the prosecution appears not to be coming out
with the truth.
36. In light of the discussion above, taking into consideration all
aspects of the matter and, more particularly, having regard to the
following: (a) that there were multiple persons injured in the
incident, yet, except PW-1, no one supported the prosecution case
qua the appellants; (b) that in PW-1’s testimony the role played by
Anjani in the shoot-out is not specific besides, it does not inspire
confidence for the reasons recorded above; (c) that rifle magazine
recovered from the spot did not match with the seized rifle, which
had no magazine, and the magazine of the weapon was produced
by its licensed holder, giving rise to a doubt whether the rifle used
in the crime was of Ravindra, or there was some other weapon
used, or some other person was involved in the crime; (d) that the
Page 22 of 24
Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2020
accused held no motive to kill the two deceased; and (e) that only
one empty cartridge was found at the spot which did not
forensically connect with the rifle seized from Ravindra, we are of
the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case
beyond reasonable doubt.
37. Another feature of the case which requires mention is that the
gun shot injuries found on the body of the two deceased disclosed
blackening at the margins of the entry wound suggesting that shots
were fired from close range. If shots were fired from a close range,
why would a person kill two innocent people against whom there
is no motive. This throws doubt on the theory propounded by the
prosecution that gunshots were aimed at someone else but by
chance they hit the two deceased. Whether those persons were
targeted, if so, by whom, or were victim of indiscriminate firing, is
not easy to decipher from the prosecution evidence. Moreover, the
aforesaid circumstances lend credence to the testimony of other
witnesses that at the time of occurrence lights went off. More so,
when one of the two deceased was a generator operator.
38. In such circumstances, taking a conspectus of the entire
evidence as also the fact that all eye witnesses, except PW-1, have
not supported the prosecution case and have consistently deposed
Page 23 of 24
Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2020
about there being no light at the time of occurrence, in our view, it
was a fit case where the benefit of doubt ought to have been
extended to the appellant (Anjani) by the courts below.
Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order
convicting the appellant (Anjani) is set aside. The appellant Anjani
shall stand acquitted of the charges for which he was tried. It is
observed that Anjani was released on bail during the pendency of
this appeal. Consequently, his bail bonds are discharged.
39. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
……………………………J
( MANOJ MISRA)
……………………………J
(JOYMALYA BAGCHI)
NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 5, 2026
Page 24 of 24
Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2020