Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
MANOJ MISRA, JOYMALYA BAGCHI, JJ.
Anjani Singh – Appellant
Versus
The State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2020
Decided On : 05-01-2026
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/34, 307/34 and 504 – Murder, attempt to murder and intentional insult – Common intention – Conviction and sentence – Seized rifle was without its magazine and magazine was in possession of license holder – What is important is that magazine recovered from spot, could not be forensically connected with seized rifle – Insofar as country made pistol, alleged to be with appellant is concerned, same could not be recovered during investigation – It appears to be a case where several attackers with firearms had opened fire – Incident did not occur in manner as alleged by prosecution, and prosecution appears not to be coming out with truth – Accused held no motive to kill two deceased – Gun shot injuries found on the body of two deceased disclosed blackening at margins of 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 theory propounded by prosecution that gunshots were aimed at someone else but by chance they hit two deceased – All eye witnesses have not supported prosecution case and have consistently deposed about there being no light at the time of occurrence – It was a fit case where benefit of doubt ought to have been extended to appellant by courts below – Appellant acquitted. (Paras 35, 36, 37 and 38)
Facts of the case:
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 Sections 302/34, 307/34 and 504 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. All three were convicted by 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. On appeal to the High Court, Rishabh Dev Singh (for short Rishab) was acquitted whereas conviction of Anjani Singh and Ravindra Singh was affirmed vide impugned order.
Findings of Court:
Judgment and order convicting the appellant (Anjani) is set aside. The appellant shall stand acquitted of charges for which he was tried. Anjani was released on bail during the pendency of this appeal. Consequently, his bail bonds are discharged.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized with references:
The prosecution's case was primarily based on the eyewitness testimony of PW-1, which was inconsistent and lacked corroboration from other witnesses. Many witnesses who were injured or present at the scene testified that the lights went off during the incident, making their observations unreliable (!) (!) (!) .
The evidence regarding the seizure of the rifle was questionable. The rifle handed over to the police was without its magazine, and the magazine recovered from the spot did not match the seized rifle, raising doubts about the weapon's involvement in the crime (!) .
The injuries sustained by the victims, including the deceased, indicated close-range firing, yet the prosecution did not establish a clear motive or consistent sequence of events. The evidence suggested the possibility of indiscriminate firing by multiple attackers, which was not conclusively proven (!) .
Several witnesses, including those who were injured, either denied being present at the time of the incident or testified that they arrived after the firing had ceased, and many were declared hostile. This weakened the reliability of the prosecution's overall case (!) (!) .
The court found that the evidence was insufficient to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The inconsistencies and lack of direct, corroborative evidence led to the conclusion that the incident's occurrence as narrated was doubtful (!) (!) .
The appeal was allowed, and the conviction of the appellant (Anjani) was set aside. The court acquitted the appellant of the charges, emphasizing the importance of the burden of proof on the prosecution and the necessity of reliable, consistent evidence for a conviction (!) .
Additional procedural points include the fact that the appellant was released on bail during the trial, and his bail bonds were discharged upon acquittal (!) .
These points collectively highlight the importance of consistent and corroborated evidence in criminal trials and demonstrate that, in this case, the evidence was insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction of appellants affirmed (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. details of the prosecution case and incident (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. evidence of witnesses and investigation findings (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. arguments concerning reliability of evidence and doubt on prosecution's case (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 5. assessment of doubt in prosecution case and light conditions during incident (Para 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 6. acquittal of accused based on doubt in evidence (Para 38 , 39) |
JUDGMENT :
MANOJ MISRA, J.
1. This appeal arises from judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad1[The High Court] 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 Sections 302 /34, 307/34 and 504 of INDIAN PENAL CODE , 18602[IPC]. All three were convicted by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, 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 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
6. First Information Report3[FIR] 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 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:
(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.
Murder – Conviction and sentence cannot be sustained where prosecution has been consistent on material aspects of the case.
The prosecution must establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, and reliance on uncorroborated witness testimony, especially from related parties, is insufficient for conviction.
Merely, because they have not been examined is not a ground to disbelieve an otherwise credible ocular account rendered by a person injured in the incident whose presence, otherwise also, is natural ....
Point of Law : The appellant shall be released from jail forthwith, unless wanted in any other case, subject to compliance of the provisions of Section 437A Cr.P.C. to the satisfaction of the trial c....
Discrepancies in eyewitness accounts undermined the prosecution's case, leading to the acquittal of the accused due to reasonable doubt of their involvement in the crime.
Conviction based solely on testimonies of related witnesses is unsafe without independent corroboration, as evidenced by inconsistencies and lack of physical evidence.
The court emphasized the necessity of consistent and reliable eyewitness testimony, finding significant discrepancies that undermined the prosecution's case.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
