2026 Supreme(All) 446

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW
RAJNISH KUMAR, ZAFEER AHMAD, JJ.
Shankar And Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.255 of 2005, Criminal Appeals No. 254 of 2005, 43 of 2005 and 231 of 2005
Decided On : 27-02-2026

Conviction for mass murder under 302/149 IPC set aside due to unreliable, contradictory ocular evidence from related witnesses; doubtful night identification, improbable presence/story; benefit of doubt where two views possible.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 148, 302/149, 307/149, 452, 404 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Criminal appeals against conviction for rioting armed with deadly weapons, murder with common object, attempt to murder with common object, house-trespass after preparation for hurt, murder, misappropriation of property - Prosecution case of family enmity leading to massacre killing five persons, injuring one child by group of assailants at night - Trial court convicted eleven accused to life imprisonment inter alia, sentences concurrent - High Court allows appeals, sets aside conviction - Major contradictions in testimonies of three related eyewitnesses (wife of one deceased, son of another, injured nephew); doubtful presence at scene; improbable recognition of 15+ assailants in poor lantern/diya light from hiding spots; inconsistent hiding places vis-à-vis site-plan; unnatural conduct post-incident; no independent witnesses; scribe of FIR not examined; delayed ante-timed FIR with articulate details improbable sans consultation; non-commensurate injuries; failed recoveries/weapons unlinked; acquittal in Arms Act cases undermines case; motive unproved against all; benefit of doubt as two views possible, ocular evidence unreliable. (Paras 33-69)

(B) Evidence - Ocular testimony - Related/injured witnesses - Testimony not to be discarded merely for relationship/injury; must be scrutinized for consistency, probabilities; major contradictions, embellishments, improbabilities fatal; no mechanical corroboration needed from independents if reliable, but here unreliable hence acquittal. (Paras 51-64)

(C) Unlawful assembly - Section 149 IPC - Liability not needing specific overt acts if common object proved; but hinges on reliable participation proof, absent here. (Para 53)

Facts of the case:
Family feud over prior murders culminates in night attack by 15 named + 7-8 outsiders armed with firearms, axes etc., killing five (father, brothers, sister-in-law, cousin), injuring 12-year-old nephew; loot alleged; FIR next morning; recoveries, post-mortems detailed firearm/incised wounds; trial convicts eleven; appeals challenge eyewitness credibility, improbabilities.

Findings of Court:
Prosecution evidence unreliable; contradictions go to root; acquittal warranted.

Issues: Reliability of related eyewitnesses' identification in night with poor light; consistency of testimonies with medical/site-plan; FIR ante-timing, consultation; conduct improbabilities; motive proof; false implication plea.

Ratio Decidendi: Conviction unsustainable on contradictory, improbable ocular evidence from interested family witnesses; doubtful identification/presence; no independent corroboration; lapses in investigation irrelevant if eyes unreliable; two views possible favours acquittal; trial court erred in presuming guilt sans scrutiny.

Result: Appeals allowed; conviction and sentences set aside; appellants acquitted, released forthwith unless wanted elsewhere.