The Allahabad High Court at Lucknow has dismissed two appeals-one by the complainant and another by the State of Uttar Pradesh-challenging the acquittal of two men accused in a 2006 firing incident in Ayodhya. The division bench of Justice Rajnish Kumar and Justice Rajeev Singh, delivering its verdict on October 17, 2025, found no illegality in the trial court’s decision to acquit Pramod Singh and Vikas Singh of charges under Sections 307 (attempt to murder), 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
Background
The case dates back to May 28, 2006, when a complaint was lodged at Kotwali police station, Ayodhya. The complainant, Rama Kant Yadav, alleged that during block-level elections, Vikas Singh and his associates fired upon his brother, Ravi Kant Yadav, in front of their house. The firing, he claimed, was part of a broader political vendetta tied to local power struggles during the Block Pramukh elections.
According to the FIR, the attackers arrived on two motorcycles, opened fire, and fled, leaving Ravi Kant seriously injured with a gunshot wound near his neck. The case went through a long procedural journey, with the trial court eventually acquitting both accused in 2012 due to inconsistencies in medical and eyewitness accounts.
Court’s Observations
During the hearing, counsel for the appellant argued that the trial court had ignored credible eyewitness testimony and relied too heavily on minor discrepancies in the medical reports. They emphasized that Vikas Singh had a long criminal history and that such background should have influenced the court’s assessment.
However, the bench took a cautious approach. Justice Rajeev Singh, writing for the court, noted that the contradictions between the medico-legal report from the district hospital and the discharge summary from King George’s Medical University (KGMU), Lucknow, were too substantial to overlook.
“The medical evidence itself creates doubt,” the bench observed. “In one report, the entry wound is shown on the left side, while in another, it is shown on the right. The internal tissues were not found damaged, despite the bullet allegedly passing across the neck.”
The court further pointed out that the injured witness himself admitted he could not see the assailants as he was hit from behind. “When a witness cannot identify the shooters and the physical evidence does not match the prosecution version, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused,” the judges said.
Quoting the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (2005), the bench remarked, “Suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of legal proof.”
Decision
After reviewing the testimonies, medical records, and site plans, the High Court concluded that the trial court had correctly appreciated the evidence. The judges held that “merely because the accused have a criminal background, they cannot be presumed guilty in absence of credible evidence.”
Finding “major contradictions” in witness statements and medical evidence, the bench dismissed both appeals-one filed under Section 372 Cr.P.C. by the complainant Ravi Kant Yadav, and the other by the State under Section 378 Cr.P.C.
With this, the 13-year-old legal battle over the Ayodhya firing incident has effectively come to a close, upholding the acquittal of both accused men.
Case: Ravi Kant Yadav vs State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary, Home, Lucknow & Others
Date of Judgment: October 17, 2025