Court finds circumstantial evidence insufficient for conviction, sets aside life sentences and motorcycle forfeiture
The Allahabad High Court, in a judgment pronounced on May 27, 2026, has acquitted Sunil Kumar, the sole surviving appellant, in a 1986 murder case, citing insufficient circumstantial evidence to support his conviction. The division bench comprising Justices Rajnish Kumar and Babita Rani found that the prosecution failed to establish a conclusive chain of evidence linking Sunil Kumar to the murder of 17-year-old Deepak Kumar, who was last seen with the accused and later found dead near Jamaur culvert, Shahjahanpur.
The case, stemming from a reported illicit relationship between the deceased and the sister of one of the accused, relied heavily on circumstantial evidence and the "last seen together" theory. However, the court determined that the evidence was insufficient to uphold the life sentences handed to the accused by the trial court in 1989. The court emphasized that without a complete and exclusive chain of circumstances pointing to the guilt of the accused, a conviction could not be sustained.
Moreover, the court addressed the issue of a Rajdoot motorcycle, bearing registration No. U.S.W. 8137, which had been confiscated by the state on the grounds of its alleged use in the commission of the crime. The bench noted that there was no substantial evidence proving the motorcycle's use in the crime and ordered its release to the owner, Puttoo Lal Trivedi, who was not implicated in the case.
The judgment highlighted the essential requirement of corroborative evidence when relying on circumstantial evidence and "last seen" theories, reiterating that suspicion, however grave, cannot replace concrete proof in criminal jurisprudence. The court referenced significant Supreme Court precedents underscoring the need for a complete evidentiary chain to support convictions in circumstantial evidence cases.
The acquittal and the release order for the motorcycle bring closure to a decades-old case marked by allegations, weak evidentiary support, and procedural challenges. The case underscores the judiciary's commitment to ensuring convictions are based on firm evidence, aligning with the legal principle of "beyond reasonable doubt."
Bottom line:-
Circumstantial evidence and last seen theory - Conviction cannot be based solely on circumstantial evidence unless the chain of circumstances is complete and points only towards the guilt of the accused. Evidence of "last seen together" should be corroborated and the time gap between the last seen and death must be short to eliminate any other possibility.
Statutory provision(s): Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 34, 120-B; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 452, 374(2), 454, 437A; Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 73
Laxmi Kant @ Pappu (dead) v. State of U.P., (Allahabad)(DB)(Lucknow) : Law Finder Doc id # 2907769
