Court highlights inadmissibility of co-accused confessions, hostile eyewitnesses, defective recoveries, and absence of complete circumstantial chain; upholds presumption of innocence and grants benefit of doubt.
In a landmark judgment dated June 5, 2026, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench, Division Bench) quashed the conviction and sentences of Sanjay Rai and six other co-accused, who were convicted for the murder of 14-year-old Maaz Ahmad Siddiqui in a 2013 shooting at Faridi Nagar, Lucknow. The appellants had been sentenced to life imprisonment and fines by the Sessions Trial Court, but the High Court found the prosecution evidence to be riddled with legal and factual infirmities, warranting acquittal.
The case stemmed from a complaint by Husn Bano (P.W.-1), the deceased’s aunt, alleging that three men on a motorcycle entered her house and fired shots at her nephew, who later succumbed to his injuries. The prosecution’s case rested primarily on police investigation material, including confessional statements of co-accused recorded during custodial interrogation, recoveries of weapons, vehicles, mobile phones, and SIM cards, forensic reports, and circumstantial evidence.
However, the High Court meticulously analyzed the evidence and identified multiple fatal gaps:
1. Inadmissibility of Confessional Statements: The court emphasized that confessions made by co-accused in police custody are inadmissible as substantive evidence under Sections 25 to 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Such confessions can only be used to corroborate other reliable evidence. The confessions naming Sanjay Rai and others could not independently prove their guilt.
2. Hostile Eyewitnesses and Lack of Identification: Key eyewitnesses, including the complainant and her son, turned hostile and denied identifying the accused as assailants. No Test Identification Parade was conducted, and statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C were inconsistent, failing to establish positive identification.
3. Defective Recoveries and Procedural Lapses: The recoveries of motorcycles, mobile phones, SIM cards, a Maruti Alto car, and a country-made pistol were mostly effected on the pointing out of accused persons without independent witnesses. Recovery memos showed contradictory handwriting, absence of independent witnesses, and suspicious timing (e.g., implausible travel time for police to arrest accused Ajit Yadav at a distant location). The Forensic Science Laboratory report matched only the empty cartridges recovered from the scene with the recovered pistol, but the bullets did not match, casting doubt on the weapon’s role in the crime.
4. Absence of Corroborative Call Detail Records: Although mobile phones and SIM cards were seized, the prosecution failed to exhibit or rely on Call Detail Records (C.D.R.) to establish the accused’s presence or communication at the crime scene, severely weakening the conspiracy charge.
5. Incomplete Circumstantial Chain: Applying the five golden principles laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda State of Maharashtra, the court held that the prosecution failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances consistent only with guilt. Multiple reasonable hypotheses, including fabrication and mistaken identity, remained viable.
6. Unproven Motive and Criminal Conspiracy: The alleged motive involving a love affair and a conspiracy to implicate a rival was found to be conjectural and unsupported by credible evidence. No direct evidence or reliable circumstantial proof of a prior meeting of minds was established.
7. Reliance on Case Diary Entries: The Trial Court’s reliance on portions of the case diary not exhibited or proved was criticized, as case diaries are not substantive evidence and cannot be used against the accused.
8. Section 313 Cr.P.C. Statements: The court reiterated that non-explanation or inadequate explanation by accused persons during examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. cannot be the sole basis for conviction without corroborative evidence.
The High Court also noted that the brutality of the crime, though shocking, cannot substitute the legal requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence remains paramount, and suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof.
Consequently, the Court allowed the criminal appeals filed by Sanjay Rai, Ram Babu @ Chotu, Ajeet Rai @ Shintu, Sandeep Rai, Rakesh Kumar Soni @ Bablu, Rahul Rai, and Sunil Kumar Saini @ Pahalwan, setting aside their convictions and sentences. The appellants were ordered to be released forthwith unless required in other cases.
The judgment serves as a critical reminder of the importance of independent corroboration, proper investigation procedures, and caution in relying on custodial confessions in criminal trials.
Bottom line:-
Conviction based solely on confessional statements of co-accused and police recoveries lacking independent corroboration cannot sustain; hostile eyewitnesses and defective investigation create reasonable doubt; inadequate proof of criminal conspiracy and motive; recovery procedure flawed; C.D.R. evidence not exhibited; benefit of doubt to accused.
Statutory provision(s): Indian Penal Code Sections 302, 120B, 449, 34; Indian Evidence Act Sections 25, 27; Code of Criminal Procedure Sections 161, 164, 172, 173(8), 294, 313
Sanjay Rai v. State of U.P.,(Allahabad)(Lucknow)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2919688
