New Delhi: In a significant judgment emphasizing the principle of “benefit of doubt,” the Supreme Court on Monday acquitted a man who had been convicted of murder in connection with a 2004 incident in Ballia, Uttar Pradesh. The court observed that the trial and high courts should have extended the benefit of doubt to the accused, Anjani Singh, given the inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case.

A bench of Justices Manoj Mishra and Joymalya Bagchi was hearing Singh’s appeal against a July 2019 Allahabad High Court ruling, which had upheld the trial court’s conviction of Singh in the murder case. The case stemmed from an incident that occurred on October 20, 2004, during Durga Puja celebrations in a village in Ballia district.

According to the First Information Report (FIR), Singh, along with his brother, allegedly opened fire on a gathering of around 100 people following an altercation. The attack reportedly led to the immediate death of two individuals, while several others, including a key prosecution witness, sustained injuries.

Key Observations of the Supreme Court

In its judgment, the bench noted that the testimony of the principal prosecution witness was not of a quality sufficient to convict Singh as the sole assailant. Several other injured witnesses did not identify him at all.

“It is difficult to believe how a person with just a country-made pistol, which is ordinarily a single-shot weapon, would be able to escape along with two others while an infuriated crowd of more than 100 people remained unarmed,” the bench observed. Moreover, the court highlighted that the weapon allegedly used in the attack was never recovered during the investigation, further casting doubt on the prosecution’s narrative.

The Supreme Court also pointed out that the incident appeared to involve multiple attackers with firearms, contrary to the way the prosecution had presented the case. “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,” the court stated.

Absence of Motive and Inconsistent Testimony

Another critical factor considered by the court was the absence of a discernible motive for Singh to have committed the killings. The bench emphasized that motive is a key element in criminal cases, and the lack of one further weakened the prosecution’s case against him.

The court also noted that the eyewitnesses, apart from the key prosecution witness, consistently reported that the area was poorly lit at the time of the incident, making identification and attribution of responsibility extremely difficult. Based on these observations, the bench concluded that the trial and high courts erred in not extending the benefit of doubt to Singh.

Benefit of Doubt Applied

“Taking a conspectus of the entire evidence, as also the fact that all eyewitnesses, except prosecution witness one, 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 the doubt ought to have been extended to the appellant by the courts below,” the Supreme Court held.

Consequently, the apex court set aside the judgments of both the trial court and the Allahabad High Court, acquitting Anjani Singh of all charges for which he had been tried.

Significance of the Judgment

Legal experts note that the verdict reinforces the foundational principle of criminal jurisprudence in India—that an accused must be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment also underscores the importance of corroborated evidence and the careful scrutiny of eyewitness testimonies, particularly in cases involving multiple parties and chaotic circumstances.

The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a reminder that convictions based solely on inconsistent or unreliable witness statements can be unsafe and must be carefully examined to prevent miscarriages of justice.

By acquitting Singh, the court has sent a clear message to lower courts to exercise caution and fairness, especially in cases where the evidence is contested or unclear, and to ensure that defendants are not wrongfully penalized due to lapses in the investigative or prosecutorial process.