No Convincing Evidence: Supreme Court Acquits Ex-IRB Constable Convicted For Superior’s Murder; Grants Liberty To Seek Reinstatement

The High Court was considering a criminal appeal against the order of the Jharkhand High Court affirming the conviction of the appellant directed by the Trial Court under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

The Division Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma held, “The aforesaid analysis leads us to the irresistible conclusion of there being no convincing evidence on record to suggest that it is the appellant, and none else, who gunned down the deceased. As a sequitur, the order of conviction rendered by the High Court has to be set aside and the appellant acquitted”

“Based on the conviction recorded by the Trial Court, the appellant must have been dismissed from service. He is granted liberty to seek reinstatement before his appointing authority with such other consequential benefits, as he may be advised, provided he is still mentally and physically capable of discharging his duties. If any prayer in this behalf is received, the appellant’s appointing authority shall take an expeditious decision thereon in accordance with law. Should the appellant be not found so capable, he may be financially compensated adequately.”

AOR Awanish Sinha represented the Appellant, while Advocate Ruchira Gupta represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The appellant (a constable in the Indian Reserve Battalion) had allegedly gunned down his superior. The motive for the crime was that the deceased had not approved the appellant’s request for a grant of leave. The informant (a hawaldar), testified that he was on duty with four other constables at the time of the incident. The Appellant was on sentry duty. It was the case of the prosecution that upon hearing gunfire in the evening, the informant came out of the guard room, found the appellant coming from the side of the room of the deceased holding an INSAS rifle (later confirmed to be the weapon of offence). The Appellant then allegedly confessed to killing the deceased.

Reasoning

The Bench found that the informant was a post-occurrence witness, as despite having testified about seeing the appellant clearly, he had admitted that he identified the appellant only from his voice and not by clear visual recognition due to the prevailing darkness at the time. “This admission materially undermines the reliability of his testimony, particularly in light of his earlier assertion that he had seen the appellant holding the weapon. We, thus, find it difficult to rely upon his testimony”, it added.

The Bench also noticed that the appellant allegedly did not confess before one of the constables, who was a witness. The constable came to know of the same through the informant, and the Bench held that this constable was only a hearsay witness.

The Bench noticed that there was no eyewitness in the case, and the prosecution's case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence. Dealing with the version of a jawan that his rifle had been inadvertently exchanged with another rifle bearing about ten days before the incident, while performing guard duty, the Bench stated, “It is difficult to accept that in a disciplined force, exchange of rifles allotted to two jawans would remain unnoticed for long ten days. Significantly, the duty register for 18th May, 2014 was not led in evidence. In the absence of other cogent evidence to support this circumstance, in our opinion, it would not be safe to sustain the conviction on mere suspicion.”

Referring to the judgment in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984), the Bench reaffirmed that every link in the chain of circumstantial evidence must be conclusively established. Even a single missing or weak link may prove fatal to the prosecution’s case. “In the present case, the evidence on record falls short of the standard of proof required in criminal law and does not exclude every reasonable hypothesis consistent with the innocence of the appellant. Consequently, in our considered opinion, it (the evidence) is wholly insufficient to warrant his conviction”, the order read.

Thus, setting aside the conviction of the appellant and noting that he has been in custody for nearly 12 years, the Bench ordered his release.

Cause Title: Jay Prakash Yadav v. The State of Jharkhand (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 317)

Appearance

Appellant: AOR Awanish Sinha, Advocates Gautam Jha, Pankaj Kumar, Sumit Kumar

Respondent: Advocates Ruchira Gupta, AOR Madhusmita Bora, Advocates Dipankar Singh, Pavithra V., Mohtisham Ali, Yashika Sharma, Sumriddhi Agrawal, Nitender Yadav

Click here to read/download Judgment