Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(UK) 1358

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Ravindra Maithani, Siddhartha Sah, JJ
NEERAJ SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND – Respondent
CRJA 124 / 2023

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: D. C. S. Rawat
For the Respondents: Pankaj Joshi

A conviction cannot be sustained when the prosecution's case is marred by material contradictions between the initial report and subsequent testimonies, and the recovery of incriminating evidence lacks independent corroboration, thereby failing to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 457, 380, 411 - Arms Act, 1959 - Section 5/27(1) - Murder - Theft - Criminal Appeal - Conviction based on circumstantial evidence and alleged eyewitness testimony - Discrepancies between initial report and subsequent statements - Material contradictions regarding presence of eyewitness at scene - Delay in reporting theft of weapon - Lack of independent witnesses for recovery of weapon - Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 59-62)

(B) Evidence - Appreciation of - Testimony of witness - Contradictions between initial report and deposition - Where initial report is silent on presence of eyewitness, subsequent claims of witnessing the incident are unreliable - Material improvements in prosecution case undermine credibility. (Paras 60-61)

(C) Recovery - Independent witnesses - Necessity of - In absence of independent witnesses, recovery of incriminating material from accused is suspect - Planted recovery - Adverse inference drawn against prosecution. (Para 61)

Facts of the case:
An individual was found dead with a firearm injury. The initial report mentioned hearing a gunshot but did not identify the assailant or mention an eyewitness. Later, a family member claimed to have witnessed the incident. A report regarding a stolen firearm was filed with significant delay and suspicious alterations. The accused was arrested, and a firearm was allegedly recovered without independent witnesses.

Findings of Court:
The court found material inconsistencies between the initial report and the testimonies. The absence of the eyewitness in the initial report and the suspicious nature of the theft report cast doubt on the prosecution's narrative. The recovery of the weapon was deemed unreliable due to the lack of independent witnesses.

Issues: Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt; whether the eyewitness testimony and the recovery of the weapon were credible.

Ratio Decidendi: When the prosecution's case suffers from material contradictions between the initial report and subsequent testimonies, and the recovery of incriminating evidence lacks independent corroboration, the prosecution fails to meet the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, necessitating acquittal.

Result: Appeal allowed; conviction set aside; accused acquitted.

(Per: Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J.)

1.The present Criminal Jail Appeal has been preferred on behalf of the accused/appellant against the judgment and order dated 09.08.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh in Sessions Trial No.06 of 2021, State of Uttarakhand vs. Neeraj Singh (arising out of Case Crime No.01 of 2020, under Sections 302, 457, 380, 411 of IPC and Section 5/27(1) of the Arms Act, Police Station Patti Aamthal, District Pithoragarh), whereby the accused/appellant has been sentenced as under:-

Aforesaid sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. The present case started on the basis of FIR that was lodged before the Patti Patwari Thal, Tehsil Thal, District Pithoragarh, by the informant, Ganga Singh S/o Late Karam Singh, R/o Village Machhikhet, (Tok Banri), Patti Thal, Tehsil Thal, District Pithoragarh with the allegations that on 19.09.2020 at about 9:30 p.m., the informant was watching news on the Television in his room, at that time, he heard the sound of a bullet. On hearing the sound and on the shouting of daughter-in-law, Smt. Saraswati Devi, he came out, by which time, his nephew, Pushkar Singh S/o Late Jagat Singh, was seen fallen on the ground with a grievous firearm injury on his back, from which blood was profusely oozing out. On hearing the voices of crying, the nearby villagers came running to the place of incident. It was doubted that the bullet might have been fired from the roof top. At that time, we 2 - 3 persons went to the terrace but did not see anybody there. There was brightness in the courtyard (Angan), due to which they did not see anybody running. At that time, the informant went with the emergency light to the adjacent Goth (cattle room) then saw the appellant Neeraj Singh S/o Bhopal Singh of this Village sitting with gun in his hand. The informant came running out to save his life and at that time, the appellant ran away from the Goth (cattle room) with the gun. Therefore, it was requested that proper action be taken. On the basis of the report dated 20.09.2020, Chik FIR was registered at Rajaswa Up-Nirikshak (Revenue Sub-Inspector) Thal/Aamthal, District Pithoragarh as Case Crime No.1 of 2020 under Section 302 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act against the accused/appellant.

3. Another report dated 19.09.2020 was lodged with Patti Patwari Thal, Tehsil Thal, District Pithoragarh by one Rajendra Singh S/o late Jagat Singh R/o Machikhet, Tehsil Thal, District Pithoragarh with the allegation that he is an arms holder. His gun’s number is recorded as DBBL-97677. In the evening of 18.09.2020 when he returned to his room, he found that his gun, which was kept near his bed, and the cartridges, kept in a locked almirah, had been taken away by someone by breaking open the lock. Therefore, it was prayed that a First Information Report be registered for his missing gun and cartridges.

4. The inquest report was prepared on 20.09.2020 at about 9:00 a.m. by the Rajaswa Up-Nirikshak (Revenue Sub-Inspector), Aamthal/Thal, wherein the informant Ganga Singh on inquiry had reiterated the FIR version to the Patti Patwari. As per the opinion of the Panch witnesses, the death of the deceased Pushkar Singh was caused due to the gunshot fired by Neeraj Singh.

5. That it is the case of the prosecution that the accused/appellant was arrested on 20.09.2020 from a bathroom near Nagmal Temple, Old Thal, by the Station House Officer, Mr. Hem Chandra Pant along with a double barrel gun bearing No. 97677 and a bag containing 19 live cartridges. Memo of arrest and recovery of double barrel gun and 19 live cartridges was duly prepared.

6. The post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, Pushkar Singh, was conducted on 21.09.2020 at about 12:30 p.m. at B.D. Pandey District Hospital, Pithoragarh. As per the post-mortem report, the ante-mortem firearm injury was found in the form of a lacerated wound measuring 3 cm × 2 cm, 12 cm deep with inverted skin margin present over medial aspect of the back of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(UK) 1358

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHANDRavindra Maithani, Siddhartha Sah, JJNEERAJ SINGH – AppellantVersusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND – RespondentCRJA 124 / 2023

A conviction cannot be sustained when the prosecution's case is marred by material contradictions between the initial report and subsequent testimonies, and the recovery of incriminating evidence lacks independent corroboration, thereby failing to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Ravindra Maithani, Siddhartha Sah, JJ
NEERAJ SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND – Respondent
CRJA 124 / 2023