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

On 9 November 2012 at approximately 3:30 p.m., Uday Singh and members of his family and group went to a temple for worship. The prosecution alleged that Vijay Singh Chauhan and the other accused objected to their presence, asserted ownership over the temple, and opened fire. Vijay Singh allegedly fired at Uday Singh, causing a firearm injury, while the other accused also fired indiscriminately. Uday Singh was taken to hospital and died shortly thereafter; the post-mortem disclosed an entry and exit firearm wound, which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

The prosecution relied principally on Hariom Singh, Lokendra Singh, Mahesh Chauhan and Rakesh Singh Parmar as eyewitnesses. Empty cartridges, blood-stained soil, and bullet marks on the temple structure were recovered during investigation.

The Trial Court convicted Vijay Singh under Section 302 IPC and the other convicted appellants under Sections 302/149 and 148 IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment and additional imprisonment for rioting with deadly weapons. Devendra Singh Chauhan, Kalla @ Ramkishore Chauhan and Amreshi Singh Chauhan were acquitted.

The convicted accused filed appeals, while the State challenged the acquittal. Shankar Singh died during the pendency of the appeal, resulting in abatement of the appeal to his extent.

1. Whether the testimony of the prosecution eyewitnesses was reliable despite their close relationship with the deceased, their failure to sustain injuries, alleged delays in recording statements, and discrepancies between the ocular and medical evidence?

2. Whether the evidence established that all the convicted appellants were members of an unlawful assembly sharing the common object of committing Uday Singh’s murder, thereby attracting Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC?

3. Whether the fatal firearm injury could be individually attributed to Vijay Singh so as to sustain his conviction under Section 302 IPC, or whether his conviction was required to be altered to Section 302/149 IPC?

4. Whether the Trial Court’s acquittal of Devendra Singh Chauhan, Kalla @ Ramkishore Chauhan and Amreshi Singh Chauhan was perverse or otherwise liable to interference in an appeal against acquittal?

The Court applied Sections 148, 302 and 302/149 IPC: Section 148 concerns rioting while armed with a deadly weapon; Section 302 prescribes punishment for murder; and Section 149 imposes constructive criminal liability upon every member of an unlawful assembly for an offence committed in prosecution of its common object.

The Court applied the settled principle that minor discrepancies or variations which do not affect the core of otherwise credible testimony are not sufficient to discard eyewitness evidence, 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).

In an appeal against acquittal, interference is justified only where the acquittal is perverse, legally or factually erroneous, or results in a miscarriage of justice; substantial and compelling grounds are required, as stated in Shivajirao Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, 1973 SCC (Cri) 1033.

The Court also recognised that the absence of injuries to eyewitnesses does not, by itself, disprove their presence at the scene.

The Court found the medical evidence consistent with the prosecution case. Although the entry and exit wounds suggested a downward trajectory, the deceased had suffered a spinal fracture, and the bullet could have deflected after striking the bone; consequently, the medical evidence did not contradict the ocular account.

The alleged improvement regarding Vijay Singh firing from the temple roof was treated as a minor discrepancy because the evidence showed continuing indiscriminate firing from both the ground floor and the roof.

The absence of injuries to the eyewitnesses was not considered decisive, particularly in view of the recovered cartridges, bullet marks and blood-stained soil at the temple. The Court held that the witnesses could have avoided injury through alertness and that their presence was supported by the prompt Dehati Nalishi and surrounding circumstances.

Since all convicted appellants were armed and participated in the firing pursuant to a common object, the fatal shot could not safely be attributed exclusively to Vijay Singh; hence, his individual Section 302 conviction was modified to Section 302/149 IPC.

Conversely, the evidence against the three acquitted respondents was materially deficient: the eyewitnesses did not consistently describe their specific roles, the alleged exhortation was not supported in court, and the testimony regarding their weapons was contradictory. Applying the restricted standard for appellate interference with acquittal, the Court found no perversity in the Trial Court’s view.

The appeal of deceased appellant Shankar Singh stood abated.

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; upon surrender or apprehension, they were to be committed to custody to undergo the remaining sentence.