Section 3(2)(v) conviction requires proof that the offence was committed because of the victim’s caste.

Mahanand Ram was allegedly shot dead on the verandah of his house during the night of 7–8 November 2015.

His wife, Anuradha Devi (PW-10), stated that Birendra Yadav caught hold of the deceased, while Bablu Yadav and Kamlesh Yadav fired at his head; in her deposition, she additionally attributed one shot to Birendra.

The alleged motive was a longstanding dispute concerning approximately 82 decimals of land allotted to the deceased’s family under a Government scheme.

The post-mortem disclosed two firearm injuries to the head, causing skull fracture, brain laceration, haemorrhage and shock.

The prosecution examined twelve witnesses; only PW-10 claimed to have witnessed the assault, while the other witnesses either saw persons fleeing or reached the scene after the occurrence.

The Investigating Officer admitted that no weapon, cartridge, bullet, blood-stained clothing or bedding was seized and that no sketch map was prepared.

The trial court convicted all three appellants under Sections 302/34 IPC, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, sentencing them to imprisonment for life under the IPC and SC/ST Act and three years’ rigorous imprisonment under the Arms Act, with concurrent sentences.

They appealed against their convictions.

1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Mahanand Ram died a homicidal death caused by firearm injuries.

2. Whether the testimony of PW-10, the deceased’s widow and sole eyewitness, was sufficiently reliable to establish the appellants’ identity and participation.

3. Whether the discrepancy between PW-10’s account of three shots and the post-mortem finding of two firearm injuries, together with the investigative omissions and absence of recoveries, created a reasonable doubt.

4. Whether the appellants’ convictions under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act were sustainable in the absence of evidence that the offence was committed on the ground of the victim’s caste.

5. Whether the conviction of Birendra Yadav under Section 27 of the Arms Act could be sustained when the allegation that he fired at the deceased appeared only in PW-10’s improved courtroom version.

6. Whether the convictions and sentences imposed by the trial court required appellate interference.

The Court applied Sections 302/34 IPC concerning murder committed in furtherance of common intention and Section 27 of the Arms Act concerning use of firearms.

It applied Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act as it stood on the date of occurrence, requiring proof not merely that the victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste or Tribe but that the offence was committed because of that caste or tribal identity.

Under Section 134 of the Evidence Act, conviction may rest on a solitary eyewitness if the testimony is wholly reliable and inspires confidence, as recognised in Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 14 SCC 150.

Evidence of a related witness cannot be rejected solely on account of relationship, though it requires careful scrutiny, as held in Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1953 SC 364, and State of U.P. v. Krishna Master, (2010) 12 SCC 324.

Previous enmity is a double-edged circumstance and must be assessed cautiously.

Minor inconsistencies between ocular and medical evidence do not invalidate otherwise trustworthy testimony unless the medical evidence completely rules out the alleged occurrence, applying Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai v. State of Gujarat, (1983) 2 SCC 174, and Thaman Kumar v. State of U.T. Chandigarh, (2003) 6 SCC 380.

Defective investigation, by itself, does not warrant acquittal where substantive evidence is reliable, as stated in C. Muniappan v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2010) 9 SCC 567, and State of Karnataka v. K. Yarappa Reddy, (1999) 8 SCC 715.

The Court accepted the medical evidence and the post-occurrence testimony as conclusively establishing homicidal death by firearm injuries.

Although PW-10 was related to the deceased and admitted prior land-based enmity, her presence on the verandah was natural, her identification of the known appellants was plausible in light of the electric light, and her account was supported by the prompt FIR and the medical evidence.

The difference between three alleged shots and two recorded injuries was treated as a non-fatal discrepancy arising in a traumatic nighttime occurrence, while the non-recovery of weapons, cartridges and blood-stained articles was attributed to defective investigation rather than a basis for rejecting otherwise credible substantive evidence.

However, the Court distinguished the statutory requirements of the SC/ST Act: the evidence established a land dispute, not caste-based motivation, and therefore failed to prove the essential nexus required by Section 3(2)(v).

As to Birendra’s Arms Act conviction, the earliest version attributed only the act of catching hold to him and assigned the firing to Bablu and Kamlesh; the later allegation that Birendra also fired was a material improvement and was insufficient, standing alone, to sustain his conviction under Section 27.

The convictions and sentences of all appellants under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act were set aside because caste-based motive was not proved.

Birendra Yadav’s conviction and sentence under Section 27 of the Arms Act were also set aside due to the material improvement in the eyewitness account.

His conviction and sentence under Sections 302/34 IPC were affirmed.

The convictions and sentences of Bablu Yadav and Kamlesh Yadav under Sections 302/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act were affirmed.