In a pivotal ruling (Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2020), the Supreme Court of India has acquitted Anjani Singh in a high-profile double murder case stemming from a chaotic village drama event in Ballia, Uttar Pradesh, on October 20, 2004. The incident, marked by indiscriminate firing that killed two and injured several, led to convictions under IPC Sections 302, 307, and 504. While the trial court and Allahabad High Court relied heavily on the testimony of sole eyewitness PW-1 (Anugrah Narain Singh), the apex court bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Joymalya Bagchi overturned the verdict.
Key Case Highlights
- Prosecution’s Narrative: During a Durga idol establishment function, Anjani allegedly assaulted PW-1’s son, sparking a vendetta. Later, Anjani (armed with a country-made pistol), his brother Ravindra (licensed rifle), and father Rishabh (lathi) allegedly fired at PW-1, causing collateral deaths of Krishna Kant Verma and generator operator Banarasi.
- Evidentiary Cracks: Despite a prompt FIR and seized broken rifle, forensic mismatches (e.g., unlinked magazine and cartridge) raised red flags. Autopsies confirmed close-range shots with blackening, yet no motive linked accused to the deceased. PW-1’s superficial injuries and criminal history (Goondas Act bookings) undermined credibility.
- Hostile Witnesses Galore: Eight other eyewitnesses, including injured victims, turned hostile, citing darkness (generator shutdown) and inability to identify shooters. No one corroborated PW-1’s specific role attribution to Anjani.
- SC’s Razor-Sharp Analysis: The court stressed that a solitary witness’s “wavering testimony” cannot sustain conviction without “stellar quality” and corroboration. Inconsistencies—like PW-1’s shifting account of firing spots and Anjani’s alleged non-firing during rifle snatching—coupled with improbable escape amid a 100+ crowd, triggered reasonable doubt. “Prosecution failed to prove beyond doubt,” ruled the bench, discharging Anjani’s bail bonds.
This judgment reinforces the golden principle of criminal jurisprudence: innocence until proven guilty. It underscores the perils of over-relying on uncorroborated testimony in multi-witness scenarios, especially amid forensic gaps and hostile turns. A stark reminder for investigators to build airtight cases, not lean on flimsy narratives.
For legal practitioners, this case is a masterclass in appellate scrutiny—highlighting how benefit of doubt can unravel even decade-old convictions. Stay tuned for deeper dives into IPC 302 defenses.
Lawcutor 