Motive Appears To Be A Bogey; ConvictionBased On Inadmissible Case Diaries & Fabricated Memos: Allahabad High Court Acquits 7 Men Accused Of Murdering 14 Year Old Boy

“No doubt it is true that there had been a brutal murder of a young child. However, the brutality of the offence does not dispense with the legal requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt…There cannot be a moral conviction…”, the Bench had noted in the 107 page judgment.

The Bench further held that while proof of motive assumes critical corroborative significance in cases based purely on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution’s theory of a romantic grudge amounted to nothing but "sheer conjecture" and a "far-fetched" hypothesis.

The Court criticized the Trial Court for directly violating Section 172 CrPC by treating restricted police case diaries and uncorroborated custodial confessions as substantive proof of guilt. The Court clarified that neither the grave suspicion surrounding a brutal crime nor the moral gravity of a homicide can substitute for legally admissible, independent evidence required to prove a criminal charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary observed, “…First and foremost, it must be understood that case diary, which are recorded under Section 172 of the Cr.P.C are not a piece of evidence. In order to further complicate the issue, the learned Trial court has gone one step ahead in convicting the appellants by relying on several parts of the case diary, which were not even relied by the prosecution during the Trial…We fail to understand that when the case diary cannot be used as evidence against the accused, as to how the same can be used in any other manner against him…”.

“Further, it must be well understood and moreover the law stands settled that the case diary or the police diaries can be made use by the learned Trial court only for aiding it, in a Trial. It is absolutely improper for the Learned Trial Court to use them in its judgment or seek confirmation of its opinion on the question of appreciation of evidence from statements contained in that case diary. Any entries made by the police officer of its day- to- day activities in the case diary cannot be used as evidence against the accused”, the Bench further observed.

Senior Advocate I.B. Singh appeared for the appellants and S.P. Singh, Additional Government Advocate appeared for the respondents.

Pertinently, the prosecution’s alleged motive based on a supposed love affair was found to be unsupported by evidence. The Court held that mere acquaintance was wrongly presumed to be a romantic relationship, as there was no call record or material proof to establish such a connection. The theory was therefore held to be a baseless presumption without any foundation.

“…Thus, we are of the opinion that the aforesaid allegation seems to be nothing but a sheer conjecture and purely far fetched. The prosecution has led no evidence to show that the appellant Sanjay Rai (A-1) was having any relation with the said Ms. Nida Arsi. Further one fail to understand that the motive seems to be a amiss and not a plausible rendition of having an affair with any one as it would be absolutely insane for a person to not eliminate the lover (say with whom Nida Arsi planned to marry) in the first instance and rather plan and conspire to murder a distant cousin of 14 years, who does not have any role nor any interception in the alleged love story between the said Sanjay Rai and Nida Arsi. had the so-called plan of murder executed against the brother of Nida Arsi, it would have given a different complexion…”, the Bench said.

“…This court may not sound verbose in noting that as a matter of fact & record the brother of Nida Arsi- Nadeem (P.W.-2) has specifically deposed that Sanjay Rai is not involved in the present crime and expressed his suspicion on Akmal. The motive appears to be a bogey merely provided for the sake of giving dimensions to the present case, for obvious reasons of completing the change of circumstantial evidence. However, Alas! the prosecution have failed even in proving this significant link against the Appellants”, the Bench noted.

The matter originated from an incident on May 29, 2013, when three unknown assailants entered a house in Indira Nagar, Lucknow, and indiscriminately shot and killed a 14-year-old boy. The informant suspected a local resident named Arif and his family. However, during the investigation, the police arrested the appellants based on informer tips and subsequent custodial confessions, alleging a wider criminal conspiracy.

The Sessions Court at Lucknow tried the appellants across multiple clubbed trials, where on February 28, 2020, the Court convicted and sentenced seven individuals to life imprisonment under Sections 302, 120B, 449, and 34 IPC based primarily on the investigation records and recovery memos. Aggrieved by this, the convicts filed criminal appeals before the High Court.

Evaluating the evidence, the High Court observed that all primary fact witnesses, including the de-facto complainant and eyewitnesses, completely turned hostile or expressly stated that the police had framed the wrong individuals.

“…The learned Trial court has committed a manifest error in several circumstances which were narrated in the case diary and not proved as evidence as per law. Pertinently, there is absolutely no evidence which has come on record to show that accused Rahul Rai and Sunil Kumar Saini @ Pahalwan, were present on the crime spot, however the ld. Trial court has traversed into the realms of illegality by weaving itself a story without any basis and/or evidence on record to hold that Rahul Rai and Sunil Kr. Saini were at the crime spot and has trespassed into the house of the complainant to commit the offence of murder, so as to invoke the provisions of Section 449 of the Indian Penal Code against them. Interestingly, both the eye-witness, whose house has been tresspassed has categorically deposed that these persons were not involved in any crime, nor even in tress-passing…”, the Bench said.

The Court found that the prosecution's case rested entirely on inadmissible co-accused confessions and flawed recoveries conducted in a cavalier manner without independent witnesses. Crucially, the ballistic report failed to link the recovered firearms to the bullets retrieved from the deceased's body, fatally fracturing the chain of custody.

“The circumstances brought on record do not form a complete chain so as to lead to irresistible conclusion about the involvement of the Appellants in the present crime. Establishing one or two circumstances beyond reasonable doubt is not sufficient to hold that the entire chain is complete as the chain of circumstances must be so complete, so that it leads to no other conclusion than the guilt of the Accused person, which is not so in the present case. The degree of proof required to hold the Appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt, on the strength of circumstantial evidence, is clearly not established. Due to the missing links findings of guilt cannot be recorded and the benefit of doubt must flow to the Appellants”, the Bench observed.

Consequently, the Court allowed all the appeals, set aside the conviction and sentences, and ordered the immediate release of the appellants from jail if not required in any other matter.

Cause Title: Sanjay Rai v. State of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC-LKO:40399-DB).

Appearances:

Appellants: I.B. Singh, Senior Advocate, Atul Verma, Adarsh Chandra Srivastava, Apoorv Dev, Ayush Chaudhary, Eshan Kumar Gupta, Prashant Kumar Singh, Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary, Ramakar Shukla, Vaibhav Upadhyay, Vinod Kumar Yadav, Ishan Baghel, Sanjeet Kumar Singh, Sajeet Singh, Advocates.

Respondents: S.P. Singh, Additional Government Advocate.

Click here to read/download the Judgment