Appellant Is Acquitted Where Sole Eye‑Witness Was Unreliable and Forensic Links Were Missing

A bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard the appeal by Anjani Singh against conviction by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ballia, and affirmation by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in respect of offences under Sections 302/34, 307/34 and 504 IPC arising from a shooting at a village pandal. The principal question was whether the testimony of a solitary prosecution eye‑witness (PW‑1), unsupported by other eyewitnesses and forensic linkage, could sustain conviction for the fatal shootings.

The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction of Anjani Singh, holding that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court noted significant weaknesses in the prosecution case: most injured witnesses either became hostile or stated that lights had gone off during firing; the role attributed to the appellant in the shoot‑out was inconsistent and “not of that stellar quality”; and forensic material did not connect the magazine recovered at the spot with the rifle seized from the co‑accused. The Court observed that several injured persons contradicted the prosecution narrative and that close‑range firing on two deceased persons raised questions about motive and identity of the assailants. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “In light of the discussion above, taking into consideration all aspects of the matter and, more particularly, having regard to the following: (a) that there were multiple persons injured in the incident, yet, except PW‑1, no one supported the prosecution case qua the appellants; (b) that in PW‑1’s testimony the role played by Anjani in the shoot‑out is not specific besides, it does not inspire confidence for the reasons recorded above; (c) that rifle magazine recovered from the spot did not match with the seized rifle, which had no magazine, and the magazine of the weapon was produced by its licensed holder, giving rise to a doubt whether the rifle used in the crime was of Ravindra, or there was some other weapon used, or some other person was involved in the crime; (d) that the accused held no motive to kill the two deceased; and (e) that only one empty cartridge was found at the spot which did not forensically connect with the rifle seized from Ravindra, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.” The Court further recorded that “the benefit of doubt ought to have been extended to the appellant” and accordingly acquitted him; his bail bonds were discharged.

Background The incident occurred on 20.10.2004 at a village function where a drama was staged beneath a pandal. According to the FIR lodged promptly by the informant (PW‑1), an initial quarrel preceded a later arrival of three men—Anjani (appellant), Ravindra (licensed rifle holder) and Rishabh—who allegedly exhorted each other to kill PW‑1 and opened fire. Two persons (Krishna Kant Verma and Banarasi, the generator operator) died on the spot; several others sustained gunshot injuries. A rifle with a broken wooden handle was produced by the prosecution and a magazine with an empty cartridge was recovered from the spot; autopsy reports recorded entry wounds with blackening suggestive of close‑range firing.

At trial the prosecution examined many witnesses, but except PW‑1 most of the eyewitnesses either denied presence, turned hostile, or said lights had gone off at the time of firing. Forensic linkage between the rifle seized and the magazine or cartridge recovered could not be established; the alleged country‑made pistol attributed to Anjani was not recovered. The trial court convicted the three accused; on appeal the High Court acquitted one accused (Rishabh) but affirmed convictions of Anjani and Ravindra. Ravindra died during pendency of the present appeal, and his appeal abated. The appellant Anjani challenged affirmation of conviction before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court scrutinised inconsistencies in PW‑1’s testimony, the absence of corroboration from other injured witnesses, the forensic gaps and the improbability of the conduct narrated by PW‑1. Finding the prosecution case riddled with reasonable doubt, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction of Anjani Singh and discharged his bail bonds. Pending applications were disposed of.

Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 591 OF 2020 Case Title: Anjani Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Rakesh Kumar (Counsel for appellant) For the Respondent(s): Ms. Srishti Singh (Counsel for State)