1. Criminal appeal against conviction for murder and attempted murder arising from gunshot injuries and death, challenged for lack of reliable evidence. (Para 1 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 611
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, BENCH AT JAIPUR
MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL, SAMEER JAIN, JJ.
Muneem, S/o. Banee Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Through PP. – Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal (Db) No. 394 of 2018
Decided On : 17-02-2026
Important Points
Conviction cannot be sustained based on contradictory ocular evidence, especially when the site plan fails to show essential features or proves that the alleged trajectory of fire was physically impossible, regardless of the recovery of the weapon.
Subject
Criminal Law - Homicide and Arms Act
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 307, 34, 120B and 324; Arms Act, 1959 - Sections 3/25; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 161 and 162 - Conviction based on contradictory ocular evidence and deficient site plan - Omission to show essential features in the site plan, such as the location of witnesses, creates serious doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution's case (Paras 16, 17).
(B) Physical trajectory of fire - If the site plan and testimonies establish that the victims were not in the direct trajectory of the alleged gun shots, the prosecution's case is rendered unbelievable (Paras 13, 18, 19, 20).
(C) Recovery of weapon - Mere recovery of the weapon used in the commission of an offence is insufficient to uphold a finding of guilt when ocular testimony is found to be highly doubtful (Para 22).
Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted for murder, attempted murder, and offences under the Arms Act. It was alleged that the appellants opened fire upon three women at a water tank, resulting in one death and two injuries. The prosecution's case relied on the testimony of injured and eye witnesses, though there was a significant delay in lodging the FIR.
Findings of Court:
The court found material contradictions in the witnesses' accounts regarding who fired, the number of weapons used, and the number of shots fired. The site plan failed to show a hut where witnesses claimed to have been hiding. Further, the physical layout demonstrated that the victims were behind a water tank and not in the trajectory of shots from the positions where the appellants were allegedly standing.
Issues: Whether the prosecution proved the identity of the assailants and the occurrence of the crime beyond reasonable doubt, given the contradictions in evidence and the deficiencies in the site plan.
Ratio Decidendi: The prosecution failed to establish a consistent and believable genesis of the event. When ocular evidence is self-contradictory and visually inconsistent with the site plan (specifically regarding trajectories and witness placement), it creates reasonable doubt. In such circumstances, evidence of recovery of a weapon alone cannot sustain a conviction.
Result: Appeal allowed. Conviction quashed and set aside; appellants acquitted.
(B) Physical trajectory of fire - If the site plan and testimonies establish that the victims were not in the direct trajectory of the alleged gun shots, the prosecution's case is rendered unbelievable (Paras 13, 18, 19, 20).
(C) Recovery of weapon - Mere recovery of the weapon used in the commission of an offence is insufficient to uphold a finding of guilt when ocular testimony is found to be highly doubtful (Para 22).
Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted for murder, attempted murder, and offences under the Arms Act. It was alleged that the appellants opened fire upon three women at a water tank, resulting in one death and two injuries. The prosecution's case relied on the testimony of injured and eye witnesses, though there was a significant delay in lodging the FIR.
Findings of Court:
The court found material contradictions in the witnesses' accounts regarding who fired, the number of weapons used, and the number of shots fired. The site plan failed to show a hut where witnesses claimed to have been hiding. Further, the physical layout demonstrated that the victims were behind a water tank and not in the trajectory of shots from the positions where the appellants were allegedly standing.
Issues: Whether the prosecution proved the identity of the assailants and the occurrence of the crime beyond reasonable doubt, given the contradictions in evidence and the deficiencies in the site plan.
Ratio Decidendi: The prosecution failed to establish a consistent and believable genesis of the event. When ocular evidence is self-contradictory and visually inconsistent with the site plan (specifically regarding trajectories and witness placement), it creates reasonable doubt. In such circumstances, evidence of recovery of a weapon alone cannot sustain a conviction.
Result: Appeal allowed. Conviction quashed and set aside; appellants acquitted.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Shri Tarun Jain.
For the Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar Punia, PP, Shri Naresh Kumar Gupta, PP. with Ms. Neha Goyal, Shri Ritesh Kumawat for Shri Abdul Rahim Khan.
For the Appellant : Shri Tarun Jain.
For the Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar Punia, PP, Shri Naresh Kumar Gupta, PP. with Ms. Neha Goyal, Shri Ritesh Kumawat for Shri Abdul Rahim Khan.
Table of Contents
2. Appellants contend conviction based on conjectures, delayed FIR, contradictions in witness testimony and motive; prosecution asserts evidence supports conviction. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 )
3. Prosecution evidence self-contradictory on firing, witness locations, site plan; delayed FIR and suppressed genesis undermine credibility. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 )
4. Conviction requires proof beyond reasonable doubt; material contradictions and site-plan inconsistencies render ocular testimony unreliable, necessitating acquittal. (Para 13 , 14 , 17 , 18 , 20 , 22 , 23 )
5. Appeal allowed; convictions quashed; appellants acquitted; bail bonds discharged and appellant in jail to be released, subject to personal bond. (Para 24 , 25 )
6. Does delayed FIR and refusal to immediately lodge report cast doubt on the true genesis of the prosecution case?
Yes. Unreasonable delay, unexplained by witnesses, and refusal by family to register FIR despite police presence indicates deliberation and suppression of the true genesis, undermining prosecution reliability. (Para 8 , 14 )
7. Are material contradictions in witness testimony regarding the number of shots, shooters, and positions sufficient to render the prosecution case unreliable?
Yes. Inherent contradictions among eyewitnesses on who fired, how many shots, weapon usage, and positions at the scene make the ocular evidence mutually destructive and unreliable for conviction. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 15 , 16 )
8. Does the omission of a key location from the site plan, like the alleged hiding place, affect the credibility of eyewitness testimony?
Yes. Failure to show essential features in the site plan, such as the chhappar, is not a mere oversight but casts serious doubt on whether witnesses actually observed the incident, following precedent. (Para 16 , 17 )
9. When physical trajectory from firing position contradicts witness claims of being hit, is the evidence sufficient for conviction?
No. If the site plan and investigating officer's observations show victims were not in the direct trajectory of gunfire from the alleged positions, the prosecution fails to establish causation beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 13 , 18 , 19 , 20 )
10. Does the failure to prove motive vitiate the prosecution case in the presence of contradictory ocular testimony?
Yes. While motive is not essential when ocular evidence is strong, contradictions in prosecution witnesses on motive render the story unreliable and fail to substantiate the offence. (Para 21 )
JUDGMENT :
Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J.
This criminal appeal is preferred by the accused-appellants (for short-'the appellants’) assailing the judgement dated 19.09.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karauli (for short-'the learned trial court’) in Sessions Case No.61/2015 (104/15) CIS 917/2015 whereby, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:
Appellant No.1- Muneem
Section 302 IPC: Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/-; in default whereof, three months additional simple imprisonment.
Section 307 IPC: Ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/-; in default whereof, three months additional simple imprisonment.
Section 3/25 Arms Act: Three years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.3,000/-; in default whereof, one month additional simple imprisonment.
All the sentences to run concurrently.
Appellant No.2- Banee Singh
Section 302/34 IPC: Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/-; in default whereof, three months additional simple imprisonment.
Section 307 IPC: Ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/-; in default whereof, three months additional simple imprisonment.
2. Both the sentences to run concurrently.
3. The relevant facts, in nutshell, are that the injured Smt. Kamlesh (PW1) made a parcha bayan (Ex.P1) dated 09.08.2015 at General Hospital, Karauli stating therein that on that very day, at about 6-7 am, when she, along with her sister-in-law Smt. Bhagwanti and daughter-in-law Kashmira, was at their water tank, the appellants came along with four other co-accused and the appellant-Banee opened gun fire which hit all three of them resulting in death of Bhagwanti. It was stated that the incident was witnessed by S/Shri Dhara Singh and Ram Swaroop. Based thereupon, an FIR No.118 dated 09.08.2015 came to be registered at the Police Station Kudgaon, District Karauli for offence under Sections 143, 307 and 302 IPC. After investigation, the police charge-sheeted the appellants as well as co-accused- Hariom for the offence under Sections 341, 324, 302/34, 307/34 and 120B IPC. Charges under Sections 341, 302/34, 307 and in alternate, under Sections 307/34, 324 and 120B were framed against the appellant-Banee Singh, charges under Sections 341, 302/34, 307/34 and 120B IPC were framed against co-accused Hari Om and against appellant-Muneem, under Sections 341, 302, 307, 324, 120B of IPC and 3/25 of the Arms Act. After trial, while, Hariom was acquitted of the charges framed against him, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced by the learned trial court, vide judgement dated 19.09.2018, as stated hereinabove.
4. Assailing the judgement impugned, learned counsel for the appellants contended that their conviction has been recorded by the learned trial court on the basis of conjectures and surmises without any legally admissible evidence to connect them with the alleged offence. He submitted that though, the police has reached the house of the complainant-party soon after the incident; but, they refused to lodge the report rather, much delayed it which raises a grave suspicion as to true genesis of the case. He further submitted that from the evidence on record, it is apparent that there has been improvement and embellishment by the prosecution witnesses on material aspects of the case which renders the prosecution story to be unreliable. Inviting attention of this Court towards the statement of injured witnesses and other eye witnesses, learned counsel contended that their deposition as to their location vis-a-vis the position of the appellants at the time of commission of offence, who shot the gun and the number of gun fires, is self contradictory and mutually destructive which is fatal to the prosecution case. He also contended that prosecution version as to motive of the crime is also full of contradictions rendering it totally unreliable. He, therefore, prayed that the judgement impugned dated 19.09.2018 be quashed and set aside and they be acquitted of the charges framed.
5. Per
