Absence of injuries to eyewitnesses does not negate their presence during indiscriminate firing.

On 9 November 2012, Uday Singh, accompanied by Hariom Singh, Lokendra Singh, Mahesh Chauhan and others, went to a temple for worship. The prosecution alleged that Vijay Singh Chauhan and the other accused, armed with firearms, objected to their presence and opened indiscriminate fire. Vijay Singh allegedly fired at Uday Singh, who sustained a fatal firearm injury and died shortly thereafter. Empty cartridges, bullet marks and blood-stained soil were recovered from the temple premises

Hariom Singh lodged the Dehati Nalishi, naming the accused and identifying several eyewitnesses. The Sessions Court convicted Vijay Singh under Section 302 IPC and the other convicted accused under Sections 302/149 and 148 IPC, while acquitting them of the charges under Sections 307/149 IPC. Devendra Singh Chauhan, Kalla @ Ramkishore Chauhan and Amreshi Singh Chauhan were acquitted of all charges

During the pendency of the appeal, Shanker Singh died and his appeal abated to that extent

The convicted accused challenged the reliability of the eyewitnesses, the alleged contradiction between ocular and medical evidence, the absence of injuries to the eyewitnesses, delays in recording statements, and the non-examination of an independent witness. The State challenged the acquittal of Devendra Singh, Kalla and Amreshi Singh

Whether the prosecution eyewitnesses were reliable despite their close relationship with the deceased, absence of injuries to them, alleged inconsistencies, and the non-examination of an independent witness?

Whether the medical evidence regarding the entry and exit wounds was inconsistent with the prosecution’s ocular account and therefore created a reasonable doubt?

Whether the convicted accused, acting as members of an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons, were liable under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC, even though the fatal shot could not be attributed with certainty to any individual accused?

Whether the trial court’s acquittal of Devendra Singh Chauhan, Kalla @ Ramkishore Chauhan and Amreshi Singh Chauhan was liable to be reversed in an appeal against acquittal?

The Court applied Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC: Section 148 criminalises rioting while armed with a deadly weapon, while Section 302/149 imposes constructive liability for murder committed by a member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of its common object

The Court held that minor discrepancies which do not affect the core of an otherwise reliable prosecution case are insufficient to discard eyewitness testimony, relying on State (Delhi Administration) v. Laxman Kumar, (1985) 4 SCC 476, and Wilson Fernandes v. Nitin Pandurang, 2004 (2) MWN (Cri) DCC 32 (Bom)

It further applied the principle that the absence of injury to an eyewitness does not automatically establish that the witness was not present or did not see the occurrence

For appeals against acquittal, the Court relied on Shivajirao Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, 1973 SCC (Cri) 1033, holding that acquittal should not be disturbed absent substantial and compelling grounds, perversity, or miscarriage of justice

The Court also considered Section 162 CrPC concerning the limited evidentiary use of statements made to police during preparation of a spot map

The Court found the eyewitness account substantially consistent with the prompt Dehati Nalishi, which named the convicted accused and identified Lokendra Singh and Mahesh Chauhan as witnesses at the earliest stage

The presence of empty cartridges, bullet marks on the temple structure and idol, and blood-stained soil corroborated the allegation of indiscriminate firing

The fact that the eyewitnesses escaped injury was attributed to their alertness and taking shelter inside the temple, and was not treated as proof of their absence

The alleged downward trajectory of the bullet did not contradict the ocular version because the bullet could have deflected after fracturing the spine; the medical evidence therefore did not render the prosecution case unreliable

The Court concluded that all convicted appellants were armed, participated in the firing and acted pursuant to a common object to kill Uday Singh. Since firing was carried out by several accused from different positions and the fatal shot could not be exclusively attributed to Vijay Singh, his conviction under Section 302 IPC was modified to Section 302/149 IPC

In contrast, the evidence against Devendra Singh, Kalla and Amreshi Singh was materially inconsistent and did not establish their specific participation, exhortation, or membership of the unlawful assembly beyond reasonable doubt. Applying the restricted standard governing appeals against acquittal, the Court found no basis to interfere with their acquittal

The appeal of Shanker Singh stood abated due to his death during the pendency of the proceedings

The State’s appeal against the acquittal of Devendra Singh Chauhan, Kalla @ Ramkishore Chauhan and Amreshi Singh Chauhan was dismissed

The appellants on bail were directed to surrender before the trial court by 31 August 2026, failing which coercive measures could be taken; they were thereafter to undergo the remaining sentence