Uninjured eyewitnesses remain credible where indiscriminate firing reasonably explains their escape from injury.

On 9 November 2012, Uday Singh and members of his family went to a temple for worship. The convicted appellants allegedly objected, claiming ownership of the temple, and opened fire.

Vijay Singh fired at Uday Singh, who sustained a firearm injury to the abdomen and later died.

The prosecution alleged that Vijay Singh, Udayveer Singh, Amar Singh, Megh Singh, Shankar Singh and Jitendra Singh were armed with firearms and acted together, while other accused persons allegedly carried lathis, axes and farsas.

The FIR/dehati nalishi named the convicted appellants and identified Hariom Singh, Lokendra Singh and Mahesh Chauhan as eyewitnesses.

The medical evidence established entry and exit firearm wounds, with the injury being sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

The trial court convicted the appellants under Section 148 IPC and under Sections 302/149 IPC, while convicting Vijay Singh separately under Section 302 IPC; it acquitted Devendra Singh Chauhan, Kalla @ Ramkishore Chauhan and Amreshi Singh Chauhan.

During the appeal, Shankar Singh died and his appeal abated to that extent.

Whether the prosecution eyewitnesses were reliable despite their close relationship with the deceased, the absence of injuries to them, alleged delays in recording their statements, and the non-examination of another independent witness?

Whether the alleged discrepancy between the ocular account and the medical evidence concerning the downward trajectory of the bullet created reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution case?

Whether the convicted appellants formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of committing Uday Singh’s murder and were liable under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC, even though the fatal shot could not be attributed to one particular accused?

Whether the acquittal of Devendra Singh Chauhan, Kalla @ Ramkishore Chauhan and Amreshi Singh Chauhan was liable to be interfered with in appeal?

The Court applied Section 148 IPC, which penalises rioting while armed with a deadly weapon, and Sections 302 and 149 IPC, under which every member of an unlawful assembly may be held vicariously liable for murder committed in prosecution of the assembly’s common object.

The Court treated minor inconsistencies that do not affect the substance of the prosecution case as insufficient to discard otherwise credible 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 held that the absence of injuries to an eyewitness does not, by itself, establish that the witness was not present or did not witness the occurrence.

In an appeal against acquittal, interference is justified only where the acquittal is perverse, manifestly erroneous, or results in a miscarriage of justice; the Court relied on Shivajirao Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, 1973 SCC (Cri) 1033.

Section 162 CrPC was also invoked regarding the limited evidentiary use of statements made to the police during preparation of a spot map.

The Court found the medical evidence consistent with the prosecution case. Although the entry and exit wounds were not at the same level, the bullet could have deflected after striking the spine, and the doctor had not been asked to exclude that possibility.

The eyewitnesses were considered credible because their presence was recorded in the earliest version, their accounts consistently established firing by the appellants, and empty cartridges, bullet marks and bloodstained soil corroborated the occurrence at the temple.

The absence of injuries to the eyewitnesses was not decisive, since the physical evidence indicated indiscriminate firing and their escape from injury could reasonably be attributed to alertness.

The Court also rejected the challenge based on delayed police statements, non-examination of an independent witness, and the absence of eyewitness positions in the spot map.

The evidence showed that all convicted appellants were armed, fired weapons during the incident, and acted pursuant to a common object.

Since the prosecution could not identify which particular bullet caused the fatal injury amid the collective firing, Vijay Singh’s individual conviction under Section 302 IPC was altered to one under Section 302/149 IPC; the convictions of the other appellants under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC were maintained.

Conversely, the evidence did not establish any specific role, firearm use, exhortation, or other incriminating conduct by the three acquitted respondents.

Their acquittal therefore represented a reasonably possible view of the evidence and did not satisfy the stringent standard for appellate interference.

The sentence of life imprisonment and fines imposed by the trial court remained undisturbed.

Shankar Singh’s appeal stood abated due to his death during the pendency of the appeal.

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 steps could be taken; they were thereafter to undergo the remaining sentence.