While upholding the conviction and sentence of four people for the murder of four people, the Supreme Court made the observation that it is not the quantity of witnesses but rather their quality that counts. 

The State, which had been wronged by the commutation of the death sentence, and the accused both filed appeals, which the Supreme Court was reviewing. Ajai, one of the defendants, passed away while the Supreme Court was considering an appeal.

The main defence put out by the appellants was that the case was founded on the testimony of a single witness who was related to the dead and had a personal grudge against them. The appellants emphasised that Pinky Singh did not reveal their names in the initial proceeding. The FIR was filed against unnamed individuals. The appellants further cited the absence of a magistrate's recording of Pinky Singh's statement under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Two additional witnesses who also asserted to have been in the residence at the time of the crime were not questioned.

Judges BR Gavai and Vikram Nath's bench rejected the arguments. The bench accepted the justification that the witness initially withheld the identities of the attackers to the police out of fear and then provided them to them when she felt more at ease. The bench stated that it is irrelevant whether or not other witnesses are not cross-examined as long as the lone witness' testimony is reliable.

The Court added in its observation that "Non-examination of the statement under section 164 CrPC also has no relevance or bearing to the findings and conclusions arrived at by the courts below. It was for theInvestigating Officer to have got the statement under section 164 CrPC recorded. If he did not think it necessary in his wisdom, it cannot have any bearing on the testimony of PW-1 and the other material evidence led during the trial". 

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals after determining that the High Court's decision was correct. The High Court provided reasonable justifications for commuting the death penalty, the Court also found.

Case Title : Ajai alias Ajju and others vs State of Uttar Pradesh
Citation: CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.598-­600 OF 2013

Appearances of the advocates:-

For Parties 
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, AOR
Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR
Mr. Rishi Malhotra, AOR
Ms. Deep Shikha Bharati, Adv. (A.C.)
Mr. Brijender Chahar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sarvesh Singh Baghel, AOR
Mr. Karan Chahar, Adv.
Ms. Pooja Chahar, Adv.