2026 INSC 3 Page 1 of 24

Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2020

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 591 OF 2020

ANJANI SINGH …APPELLANT(S)

Versus

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADES H …RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

MANOJ MISRA, J.

1. This appeal arises from judgment and order of the High Court

of Judicature at Allahabad

1 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, 1860

2. All

three were convicted by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge,

1

The High Court

2

IPC

Page 2 of 24

Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2020

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

Page 3 of 24

Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2020

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 Report

3 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

3

FIR

Page 4 of 24

Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2020

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:

“5. The postmortem on the dead bodies of both the

deceased was conducted by PW -11 Dr. G.C.

Maurya on 21.10.2004, and as per postmortem

report Ex. Ka-5, deceased Krishna Kant Verma has

sustained following injuries:

(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. Margin blackened and

inverted.

(2) Firearm wound of exit on the scalp at occipital

area 6.0 cm x 5.0 cm. Margin everted brain matter

protruding out. Lw (i) and (ii) injuries are connected

to each other. Small skin tag in between both

injuries.

As per Autopsy Surgeon, the cause of death of the

deceased was coma as a result of antemortem

injuries.

As per postmortem report, Ex. Ka -6, deceased

Banarasi has sustained following injuries:

(i) Firearm wound of entry on the right side forehead

2.5 cm x 2.0 cm, brain cavity deep, just above the

medial end of right eyebrow. Margin inverted and

blackened.

Page 5 of 24

Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2020

(ii) Firearm wound of exit on the post of occipital area

right side 2.0 cm x 1.5 cm, brain cavity deep, 12.0

cm above the C-7 vertebra. Margin everted. (i) and

(ii) are communicating to each other.

Note: recovered two small metallic pellets from the

brain tissue wound of exit scabbed.

As per Autopsy Surgeon, the cause of death of the

deceased was coma as a result of antemortem

injuries. Time of death was stated about one day.

6. The injured persons were medically examined by

PW-14, Dr. V.K. Gupta. As per the MLC Ex. Ka-9,

injured Vimlesh Kumar Dubey (PW-2) sustained

following injuries:

(i) Lacerated wound on chin, size 3.0 cm x 0.7 cm x

skin deep, blackening present around it.

(ii) Firearm wound of entry on left side clavicular

fossa size 1.0 cm x 0.8 cm x depth kept under

observation, blackening present, margin inverted

colour red soft scabbed.

(iii) Firearm wound of exit on just side clavicle (outer

side), size 1.5 cm x 2.0 cm x depth kept under

observation, margin everted, colour red soft.

(iv) Firearm wound of entry on left side posterior

axillary fold below arm, size 0.7 cm x 1.0 cm, colour

red with blackening around it depth kept under

observation, margin inverted.

(v) Firearm wound of exit size 1.0 cm x 1.5 cm x

depth kept under observation colour red soft

scabbed margin everted.

(vi) Multiple tiny abrasions on lateral aspect left side

arm lateral armpit size 2 mm diameter to 4 mm

diameter blackening present.

Opinion: Above injuries no. 1 and 6 are simple, rest

are kept under observation, all are due to some

firearm, duration fresh, admitted and refer to

surgeon.

Page 6 of 24

Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2020

As per MLC Ex. Ka-8, injured Anugrah Narayan

Singh (PW-1) sustained following injuries:

(i) Tiny lacerated wound on anterior aspect of 6 cm

above from wrist joint bleeding present.

(ii) Deep abrasion on medial aspect of right arm size x

5.0 cm x 1.0 cm colour red blackening present around

it.

Injury no. 1 is kept under observation, injury no. 2 is

simple both are due to some firearm, duration fresh.

As per MLC Ex. Ka -12, injured Umesh Kumar

Thakur (PW-3) sustained following injuries:

(i) Firearm wound of entry on eyebrow right side size

0.5 mm diameter margin inverted blackening present

around it, colour red soft scabbed.

(ii) Firearm on left side deltoid region, size 3 mm

diameter, colour red, blackening present around it.

Opinion: Above injuries are kept under observation,

refer to eye surgeon caused by some firearm weapon,

duration fresh.

As per MLC Ex. Ka-13, injured Harendra Kumar

Yadav (PW-10) sustained following injuries:

(i) Firearm wound of entry on upper lip, size 1.0 cm

diameter, margin inverted blackening present around

it bleeding.

Opinion: Above injury is kept under observation

caused by firearm, duration fresh.

As per MLC Ex. Ka-11, injured Mritunjay Yadav (PW-

7) sustained following injuries:

(i) Lacerated wound on right side parietal eminence of

skull, size 6 cm x 3 cm, colour red, soft scabbed,

blackening around it.

(ii) Back pain over right side scapula region.

Opinion: Above injury no. 1 is kept under observation

caused by some firearm, duration fresh.”

Page 7 of 24

Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2020

Evidence

8. During trial, prosecution examined PW-1 (Anugrah Narain

Singh-informant), PW-2 (Vimlesh Kumar Dubey), PW -3 (Umesh

Kumar Thakur), PW-4 (Mahesh Verma), PW -5 (Venkat Raman

Pratap Singh), PW-6 (Shivanand Verma), PW-7 (Mritunjay Kumar

Yadav), PW-8 (Devanand Singh), PW-9 (Janak Singh), PW-10

(Harendra Kumar Yadav) as eye witnesses of the incident. PW-11

(Dr. G.C. Maurya) was the autopsy surgeon who had prepared the

autopsy reports of the two deceased; PW-12 (Dilip Kumar Ojha)

prepared the G.D. Entry of the FIR. However, PW-12, during cross-

examination, admitted: (a) that he did not prepare any letter for

medical examination of the informant (i.e., PW-1); (b) that he does

not remember whether he could notice any injury on the body of

the informant at the time of registering the FIR; (c) that the rifle

which was deposited at the Police Station was without its

magazine; and (d) that at the time of registering the FIR, no other

injured person was present along with the informant.

9. PW-13 (Manoj Singh) was examined as an inquest witness,

however, he was declared hostile. PW-14 (Dr. V.K. Gupta) was

examined to prove the Medical Examination Report of the injured

persons.

Page 8 of 24

Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2020

10. PW-15 (M.P. Singh, Sub-Inspector of Police) was examined to

prove the investigation papers. He stated, (a) that the investigation

was started by Sub-Inspector Murahu Singh (who was not

examined), at that time, he was not present; (b) that he took over

the investigation of the case on 22.10.2004; (c) that the magazine

012027 was produced in court by the defence, which bears the

same number as is inscribed on the rifle; (d) that electricity was not

available at the site; (e) that PW-1 has criminal history; and (f) that

no blood-stained cloth of PW-1 was recovered.

11. What is important to note is that except PW-1 no other eye

witness examined by the prosecution supported the prosecution

case.

12. PW-2 stated that though he was present at the time of

incident, electricity, which was from a generator, went off,

therefore, in absence of light, he could not see how persons got

injured. He also stated that though he suffered injuries, he could

not notice whether the rifle was seized from the accused.

13. Similar is the statement of PW-3. He stated that when he was

hit by a gun-shot he fell unconscious. PW-3 was declared hostile

by the prosecution and was confronted with his previous

Page 9 of 24

Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2020

statement. During cross-examination, he stated that a pellet had

struck him while he was running.

14. PW-4, who was examined as an eye witness as well as a

witness to the inquest proceeding, though accepted his signature

on the inquest report, stated that he was not present at the time of

the incident. Rather, he arrived after the incident had occurred. He

too was declared hostile by the prosecution.

15. PW-5, who was produced as an eye witness and as a witness

of seizure of the rifle, denied his presence at the spot at the time of

occurrence. He admitted his signature on the memo regarding

handing over of the rifle, but clarified that the Investigation Officer

had called him 5-6 days after the incident to get his signature on a

paper. He also denied that the rifle was sealed in his presence.

16. PW-6, who was also produced as an eye witness as well as a

witness to the inquest report, denied his presence at the time of

occurrence. He was, accordingly, declared hostile. However, he

admitted his signature on the inquest report.

17. PW-7 was produced as an eye witness. He admitted his

presence on the date and time of occurrence, but stated that when

the firing started it was dark and, therefore, he could not notice as

Page 10 of 24

Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2020

to who fired the shots. Consequently, he too was declared hostile

and was cross-examined by the prosecution. During cross-

examination, he denied the suggestion that at the time of

occurrence there was light from the generator.

18. PW-8 was produced as an eye witness. However, he denied

his presence at the spot at the time of occurrence. Consequently,

he too was declared hostile by the prosecution.

19. PW-9, who was produced as an eye witness as well as a

witness to the seizure of the rifle, denied his presence at the spot

at the time of occurrence and stated that since 4-5 months before

the incident he had been in Punjab and he returned one year after

the incident. Prosecution declared him hostile and cross-examined

him to prove the memo qua handing over of the rifle (Ex. Ka-2). PW-

9, however, denied his signature on Ex. Ka-2.

20. PW-10 stated that the pandal and the generator for the drama

play was organised by him and that one of the deceased, namely,

Banarasi was his employee. He stated that the incident occurred

at 09:30 PM, but who exhorted , and who fired, he could not

recognise. He admitted that he was injured in the incident. The

prosecution declared him hostile and cross-examined him. During

cross-examination by the prosecution, he admitted that he saw

Page 11 of 24

Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2020

PW-1 at the spot. During cross-examination by the defence, PW-10

stated that at the time when gun-shots were fired, the lights were

off.

21. Accused claimed false implication on account of village

politics and also claimed that rifle was picked up by police from

home. However, the Trial Court as well as the High Court convicted

the appellants by relying on the testimony of PW-1.

22. We have heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar for the appellant; and Miss

Srishti Singh for the State.

Submissions on behalf of the Appellant

23. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the

prosecution case rests on the ocular account of PW-1. Testimony

of PW-1 is not of such a stellar quality as may form the sole basis

of conviction, particularly, when other persons, who were

admittedly injured in the incident, have narrated that at the time

of occurrence, lights were off. Even otherwise, the prosecution story

does not inspire confidence because there appears no reason for

the accused to indulge in indiscriminate firing to cause injuries to

several persons more so, when, as per PW-1, he was the only one

targeted. It was also argued that the prosecution had failed to prove

Page 12 of 24

Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2020

that rifle was seized from Ravindra by persons present at the spot

inasmuch witnesses of the weapon handing over memo have not

supported the prosecution case and, admittedly, the rifle was

without its magazine. Besides, the magazine, which was later lifted

from the spot, was not of the seized rifle. Even the empty cartridge

lifted from the spot did not match with the firing pin of the seized

rifle. In such circumstances, there were too many loopholes in the

prosecution story and therefore, conviction was not sustainable on

the testimony of a solitary eye witness. Additionally, it was argued,

the injuries on the body of PW-1 appear superficial. Moreover, he

was not medically examined through police. Further, the person

who made G.D. entry of the FIR had deposed that he could not

remember noticing any injury on the body of PW-1. Besides, no

blood-stained cloth of PW-1 was recovered. All these circumstances

indicate that the incident did not occur in the manner alleged; the

prosecution was hiding the truth; and PW-1 was not a reliable

witness. Even otherwise, the prosecution story is difficult to accept

inasmuch as if rifle of Ravindra could be snatched by persons

present in the pandal how could all three accused, who were left

with hardly any weapon, manage to escape. It, therefore, appears

probable, as deposed by other witnesses, that the incident occurred

Page 13 of 24

Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2020

in the darkness of night and after indiscriminate firing, the

assailants managed to escape. Additionally, it was submitted that

the first Investigating Officer was not examined to corroborate the

prosecution case. In such circumstances, it was argued, the benefit

of doubt ought to have been given to the appellant. Further, it was

submitted, the testimony of PW-1 is uninspiring because if he was

the one whom assailants targeted, it is inexplicable as to how he

could escape unscathed or with negligible injury and others,

against whom there existed no motive, suffered multiple injuries.

All of this would indicate that the incident did not occur in the

manner alleged.

Submissions on behalf of the State

24. Per contra, on behalf of the State, it was argued that all

witnesses examined were consistent on two aspects. One, the time

of occurrence and two, the place of occurrence. FIR, at the instance

of PW-1, is prompt and names all the three accused. The witnesses,

though may have been declared hostile, have not caused any doubt

regarding the place and time of the incident. Further, they have not

denied the presence of PW-1 at the spot and at the time of

occurrence of the incident. Moreover, PW-1 had received injuries,

therefore his presence cannot be doubted. In such circumstances,

Page 14 of 24

Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2020

though other witnesses might have turned hostile, for reasons best

known to them, they have not damaged the substratum of the

testimony of PW-1. In so far as PW-1 is concerned, his testimony

as regards participation of the appellant in the incident could not

be shaken during cross-examination, therefore, the Trial Court as

well as the High Court were justified in relying on his testimony to

record conviction. Besides, FIR was so prompt that there was no

time for PW-1 to contrive a story to falsely implicate the accused.

Further, there is no material to suggest that the FIR was not lodged

on the date and time as it is purported to have been lodged. In so

far as seizure of the rifle is concerned, the FIR recites about it,

therefore, there can be no shadow of doubt about the involvement

of the accused in the crime. Based on above, it was prayed that the

appeal should be dismissed.

Analysis

25. We have considered the rival submissions and have perused

the record carefully.

26. Before we proceed to assess the correctness of the impugned

judgment, we must note that PW-1 is the informant and a person

who received some injury, therefore, his presence at the scene of

crime was accepted by the courts below. However, there were other

Page 15 of 24

Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2020

persons also who had received injuries, and much more than PW-

1, but they have claimed that at the time of occurrence lights went

off and, therefore, they could not notice as to who fired the shots.

Admittedly, the supply of electricity at the pandal, where the drama

play was organised, was through a generator. Interestingly, the

generator operator got killed in the incident. Whether he got killed

accidentally in a large-scale firing or was targeted was a question

to ponder. Because, if he was targeted, the assailants might be

interested in hiding their identity. The best way to ensure darkness

is to switch off lights, and where supply of electricity is from a

generator to switch it off. Notably, witnesses other than PW-1 are

consistent that lights went off at the time of firing. In such

circumstances, a close scrutiny of PW-1’s testimony was required

to test whether it can form the sole basis of conviction of the

remaining two accused (i.e., the appellants). Importantly, accused

no.3 to whom the role of exhortation was attributed has already

been given the benefit of doubt by the High Court. Insofar as

Ravindra is concerned, his rifle was seized. Such seizure may

corroborate his presence at the scene of crime. However, during

pendency of this appeal he died, therefore, we are not dealing with

his appeal as it stood abated. In the aforesaid context, we would

Page 16 of 24

Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2020

consider whether the testimony of PW-1 inspires confidence, and

whether it is sufficiently corroborated from other circumstances

proven on record, so as to form the sole basis of conviction of

appellant Anjani.

27. PW-1 deposed that around 8.30 PM while his son was

watching the drama play, sitting on the front seat beneath the

pandal, Anjani came and slapped his son. PW-1 objected to it, as a

result, Anjani got annoyed and went away. Thereafter, at around

9.00 PM, Anjani Singh, with country made pistol, his brother

Ravindra, with his licensed rifle, and Rishab, with lathi, came and

exhorted each other to kill PW-1. Upon which, Ravindra fired from

his rifle. The bullet struck PW-1. Firing continued and several

others, namely, Harendra Yadav, Mrityunjay Yadav, Vimlesh

Kumar Dube, Umesh Kumar Thakur, Krishna Kumar Verma (i.e.

the first deceased) and Banarasi (i.e., the second deceased-

generator operator) were hit by bullets. Krishna Kumar Verma and

Banarasi died on spot and there was complete commotion and

stampede. In that melee, PW-1 and others snatched the rifle from

Ravindra. The wooden handle of the rifle broke and barrel got

twisted. However, all three accused could manage to escape while

firing shots from the pistol held by Anjani. Thereafter, PW-1,

Page 17 of 24

Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2020

Venkataraman (PW-5) and Janak Singh (PW-9) were taken on a car

to the police station where he lodged the FIR. Those who got injured

were taken to Sadar Hospital. PW-1 proved the written report (Ext.-

1) and the memo (Ext.A2) by which the rifle was handed over to the

police. PW-1 further deposed that after visiting the police station,

he went to Sadar Hospital and from there came back home and

then again went to the place of occurrence to show the crime scene

to the police.

28. During cross-examination, PW-1 deposed that he went for his

medical examination alone, police did not accompany him. He also

admitted that he was an accused in the murder of Horam Rajbhar

and that a case under Section 25 Arms Act is pending against him.

He further admitted of being implicated under the Goondas Act (at

places it is mentioned Gangsters Act) in the year 2004.

29. On being questioned, PW-1 described the incident by first

stating that the accused fired shots at him while he was sitting

towards western side of the pandal. He stated that shots were fired

from one spot, east of the place where he was sitting. He then

stated that when bullets were fired he was sitting in the enclosure,

3-4 steps from the drama stage platform. Many people were sitting

around him and 5-10 people were sitting in front of him. Then he

Page 18 of 24

Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2020

stated that firing was done from the west side of the enclosure tent

and that the distance between firing spot and drama platform may

be about 7-8 steps. Later, he stated that no firing was done from

the west side of the tent. However, when it was pointed out to him

that police had shown that firing was done from the west side of

tent, he retracted his statement and stated that it is correct that

firing was done from the west side.

30. Thereafter, PW-1 stated that as soon as firing started, he

could gather that shots were aimed at him. He stated that there

was a distance of 3-4 steps between him and the accused when the

accused had fired seeing him. Later, he said that when firing was

done at him, he along with others had caught the assailant. Then

he clarified that accused (i.e., Ravindra) was caught after he had

fired shots from his rifle. Whereafter, he stated that: “at that time,

the accused who was having the country made pistol, did not fire at

the people who were catching the person who was firing from the

rifle.” Then PW-1 stated that it took 15-20 minutes to snatch the

rifle. However, later, he stated that rifle was snatched by PW-5 and

PW-9 (Note: PW-5 and PW-9 have not supported this fact). As

regards the role of Anjani, PW-1 deposed that “when snatching etc

was taking place, at that time, Anjani Singh had not fired at people

Page 19 of 24

Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2020

involved in the snatching. Nobody tried to apprehend Anjani at the

site of the incident”.

31. During cross-examination on 20.04.2006, PW -1 deposed:

“before opening fire, the persons who opened fire came and sat

beside me, where I was sitting inside the pandal. They were at a

distance of 3-4 steps from me and surrounded me and opened gun-

shot at me. He added: “I cannot say how many gunshots were fired

using country made pistol (katta). …On occurrence of firing, I ran

here and there and fell down. I fell down in front of temple ..”

32. On 20.04.2006, PW-1 admitted that he had been booked

under Goondas Act (at some place it is Gangster Act) twice, though

he was acquitted.

33. When we go through the statement of PW-1, the only

eyewitness who supported the prosecution case, we notice that (a)

he has not been consistent with regard to the place from where

shots were fired; (b) his testimony regarding the role played by

Anjani (appellant no.1) in the shoot-out is not specific; (c) at one

point, he states that the two accused fired shots from one spot and

later he stated that accused had surrounded him and several

rounds were fired at him though he could escape by ducking; (d)

he gives no explanation as to why indiscriminate firing was

Page 20 of 24

Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2020

resorted to when he was the sole target and was in close proximity

to the assailants; (e) he categorically stated that Anjani fired no

shot when rifle of his brother was being snatched; besides, no one

tried to apprehend Anjani or snatch his pistol.

34. In our assessment, besides being a person with criminal

antecedents, PW-1’s wavering testimony does not inspire our

confidence for several reasons, namely, (a) motive for the crime,

though flimsy, was qua PW-1 yet, despite the assailants being

nearby, PW-1, suffered no grievous injury; (b) there is no

explanation for indiscriminate shootout killing two innocent

persons against whom no motive is shown; (c) those who have been

killed were shot from close range (Note: blackening found present at

the margin of entry wounds), therefore it can be taken that they did

not suffer gunshots accidentally; (d) though firing by Ravindra from

rifle is specifically alleged, firing of shots from pistol by Anjani to

target any particular person is not specifically alleged, rather the

testimony is to the effect that Anjani did not fire any shot at those

who were trying to snatch his brother’s rifle; and (e) PW-1’s injury

appears superficial; further, if he had suffered injury he would have

been taken to hospital like others. Therefore, in our view, PW-1’s

testimony is not of that stellar quality as to form the sole basis of

Page 21 of 24

Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2020

conviction of Anjani, particularly, when other injured witnesses,

who were examined by the prosecution, had disclosed that at the

time of indiscriminate firing light was off. Besides that, if the

licensed rifle of Ravindra could be snatched, it is difficult to believe

as to how a person with just a country made pistol, which,

ordinarily, is a single shot weapon, would be able to escape along

with two others who were rendered weapon less as against an

infuriated crowd of more than 100 people.

35. Besides above, though, according to the prosecution, broken

rifle was handed over to the police on the same day i.e., the date of

the incident, during investigation, a magazine of a rifle, with one

empty cartridge was recovered from the spot. Admittedly, the

seized rifle was without its magazine and the magazine was in

possession of the license holder. What is important is that the

magazine recovered from the spot, could not be forensically

connected with the seized rifle. Insofar as the country made pistol,

alleged to be with Anjani Singh, is concerned, the same could not

be recovered during investigation. No doubt, one may argue that in

the process of snatching the rifle, the magazine of the rifle may

have got detached from the rifle and, therefore, it remained with

Ravindra. But we must not ignore that presence of another

Page 22 of 24

Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2020

magazine at the spot would suggest use of another weapon. Who

used that weapon is not clear from the prosecution case. In these

circumstances, when we take notice of the testimony of PW-1 that

he was surrounded and shots were fired from all around, coupled

with the fact that many persons got injured, it appears to be a case

where several attackers with firearms had opened fire. Thus, in any

event, the incident did not occur in the manner as alleged by the

prosecution, and the prosecution appears not to be coming out

with the truth.

36. 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

Page 23 of 24

Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2020

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.

37. Another feature of the case which requires mention is that the

gun shot injuries found on the body of the two deceased disclosed

blackening at the margins of the 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 the theory propounded by the

prosecution that gunshots were aimed at someone else but by

chance they hit the two deceased. Whether those persons were

targeted, if so, by whom, or were victim of indiscriminate firing, is

not easy to decipher from the prosecution evidence. Moreover, the

aforesaid circumstances lend credence to the testimony of other

witnesses that at the time of occurrence lights went off. More so,

when one of the two deceased was a generator operator.

38. In such circumstances, taking a conspectus of the entire

evidence as also the fact that all eye witnesses, except PW-1, have

not supported the prosecution case and have consistently deposed

Page 24 of 24

Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2020

about there being no light at the time of occurrence, in our view, it

was a fit case where the benefit of doubt ought to have been

extended to the appellant (Anjani) by the courts below .

Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order

convicting the appellant (Anjani) is set aside. The appellant Anjani

shall stand acquitted of the charges for which he was tried. It is

observed that Anjani was released on bail during the pendency of

this appeal. Consequently, his bail bonds are discharged.

39. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

…………………………… J

(MANOJ MISRA)

……………………………J

(JOYMALYA BAGCHI)

NEW DELHI;

JANUARY 5, 2026