Conduct Alone Cannot Establish Guilt: Allahabad High Court Acquits Murder Accused
Prosecution must establish complete and unbroken chain; benefit of doubt must follow where links are weak or uncorroborated
Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench
The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, while reiterating the principle that suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of proof, has set aside a conviction in a murder case resting entirely on circumstantial evidence, holding that the conduct of an accused, an unreliable extra-judicial confession and doubtful recoveries cannot sustain a finding of guilt.
The Court laid emphasis on the principle that where the chain of circumstances is incomplete and inconsistent with the exclusive hypothesis of guilt, the accused is entitled to acquittal. The Bench further said that in prosecutions based solely on circumstantial evidence, the presumption of innocence operates with greater force. Unless each incriminating circumstance is firmly established and forms a complete chain pointing unerringly to the accused, the benefit of doubt must necessarily be extended.
A Division Bench of Justice Rajnish Kumar and Justice Zafeer Ahmad on reappraisal of the evidence on record while examining the legality of the conviction recorded by the Sessions Court, observed, “…the prosecution has failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances. The alleged extra-judicial confession suffers from serious infirmities and does not inspire confidence. The recovery of the alleged murder weapons is also shrouded in doubt, having not been supported by independent witnesses and lacking corroborative forensic evidence. There is no eye witness to the occurrence, and the circumstantial links relied upon by the prosecution are either weak, doubtful or uncorroborated. The cumulative effect of these deficiencies creates a reasonable doubt in the prosecution case. Such doubt is neither fanciful nor speculative, but arises from material contradictions and lacunae in the evidence on record. In criminal law, even a single reasonable doubt is sufficient to entitle the accused to an acquittal”.
Advocate S.S. Imam Rizvi appeared for the appellant and Pawan Kumar Singh, A.G.A. appeared for the respondent.
In the matter, the prosecution had alleged that the appellant had committed murder of the deceased, relying primarily on circumstantial evidence including an alleged extra-judicial confession, recovery of weapons, motive, and certain conduct attributed to the accused. However, no eyewitness to the occurrence was produced.
The trial court convicted the appellant by judgment dated 15-12-2007, and thus, aggrieved by the order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the High Court challenging the findings of guilt.
Upon scrutiny, the High Court found that the prosecution had failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances. The alleged extra-judicial confession was held to suffer from serious infirmities and was found unworthy of reliance. The recovery of the alleged murder weapons was not supported by independent witnesses and lacked corroborative forensic evidence.
The Court also disbelieved the recovery of an alleged application from the pocket of the deceased, noting that it bore neither signature nor thumb impression and its authorship remained unverified. In the absence of proof of origin and authenticity, the document could not be treated as a reliable incriminating circumstance.
Further, the Court rejected the prosecution’s attempt to rely on the appellant’s conduct, observing that mere absence at the time of lodging the FIR or participation in inquest proceedings does not automatically indicate guilt. Human conduct, the Court noted, varies widely and cannot be the basis of speculative inference.
“…the record indicates that the appellant participated in the inquest proceedings. Had he been the perpetrator of the crime, his presence in such formal proceedings cannot be lightly construed as adverse conduct. Likewise, mere absence at the time of lodging of the FIR or failure to take particular steps does not automatically give rise to an inference of guilt. Human conduct varies widely, and criminal liability cannot be fastened on speculative assumptions regarding behaviour”, the bench observed.
Therefore, holding that motive alone cannot substitute proof and that the cumulative deficiencies in the prosecution case created a reasonable doubt, the Court concluded that the conviction could not be sustained. It reiterated that even a single reasonable doubt is sufficient to entitle an accused to acquittal.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment and order were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges with a direction to release him forthwith.
Cause Title: Shiv Pujan Verma v. State of U.P. [Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC-LKO:11396-DB]
Appearances:
Appellant: S.S. Imam Rizvi, Diwakar Singh, Rajiva Dubey, Advocates.
Respondent: Pawan Kumar Singh, A.G.A.