Sole Witness Testimony Not Of Stellar Quality: Supreme Court Grants Acquittal In 2004 Murder Case
The Supreme Court was considering a criminal appeal challenging the judgment of the Allahabad High Court.
Justice Manoj Misra, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, Supreme Court
While noting that the testimony of the sole witness was not of that stellar quality to form the sole basis of conviction and the benefit of doubt ought to have been extended to the accused, the Supreme Court has granted acquittal in a murder case of 2004.
The Apex Court was considering a criminal appeal challenging the judgment of the Allahabad High Court.
The Division Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Joymalya Bagchi held, “Therefore, in our view, PW-1’s testimony is not of that stellar quality as to form the sole basis of 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.”
“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 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”, it added.
AOR Rakesh Kumar-I represented the Appellant while AOR Srishti Singh represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The case dates back to the year 2004, when a function for the establishment of Durga idol was held at a village. To celebrate the occasion, a drama play was arranged and held beneath a pandal. The Informant’s son, aged about 10 years, was amongst the audience, sitting in the front row. During drama play, Anjani started beating the boy. When the informant objected to it, Anjani got infuriated and left the scene. Thereafter, 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 the informant. Ravindra and Anjani started firing from their respective weapons, causing firearm injuries to the informant. Krishna Kant Verma (first deceased) and Banarasi (second deceased) died at the spot. The informant and other persons present there caught Ravindra and snatched his rifle, which broke down. However, all three accused managed to escape.
The three accused persons (Anjani Singh, Ravindra Singh and Rishabh Dev Singh) were tried in a Sessions Trial for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307,34 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. All three were convicted by the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge. On appeal to the High Court, Rishabh was acquitted, whereas conviction of Anjani and Ravindra were affirmed vide the impugned order.
Reasoning
The Bench took note of the fact that the informant was a person with criminal antecedents. As per the Bench, his wavering testimony did not inspire confidence, as despite the assailants being nearby, he suffered no grievous injury. There was no explanation for the indiscriminate shootout killing two innocent persons, for whom no motive was shown. Those who had been killed were shot from a close range, and the informant’s injury appeared superficial.
The Bench also found that the incident did not occur in the manner as alleged by the prosecution, and the prosecution appeared not to be coming out with the truth. The Bench considered the fact that in the witnesses’ testimony, the role played by Anjani in the shoot-out was not specific, and it did not inspire confidence.
The rifle magazine recovered from the spot did not match the seized rifle, and as per the Bench, the accused held no motive to kill the two deceased. The Bench also found 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”, it added.
Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench set aside the judgment convicting the appellant.
Cause Title: Anjani Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 3)