Court finds prosecution failed to complete chain of circumstantial evidence after sole eye-witness turned hostile and key independent witnesses were not examined
The Allahabad High Court has acquitted four persons who had been sentenced to death by a trial court in a 2017 double murder case from Budaun district, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
A Division Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev, in Capital Cases No. 18 of 2022 decided on 8 September 2026, allowed the appeal filed by Vijay Pal and three others and rejected the death reference made by the trial court.
The case related to the deaths of Govind and Asha on 14 May 2017 in village limits of Police Station Wazirganj, Budaun. According to the prosecution, Govind was called to the house of one of the accused on the pretext of discussing his marriage with Asha. The prosecution alleged that the accused opposed the relationship between the two and killed Govind inside the house, and then killed Asha when she raised an alarm.
An FIR was lodged the same afternoon under Sections 147, 148 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court later convicted the accused under murder charges and awarded the death penalty.
However, the High Court found major gaps in the prosecution case. The Bench noted that the prosecution’s “star witness”, Reshma, who was projected as the sole eye-witness, completely turned hostile during cross-examination and stated that she had not seen the incident. The court also noted that the prosecution did not re-examine her after this contradiction, and that her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. had been recorded nearly two months after the incident without any explanation.
The court further observed that Govind’s father, Pappu, who lodged the FIR, was not an eye-witness and only reached the spot after being informed of the incident. His testimony was therefore limited to subsequent events.
A major factor in the acquittal was the failure of the prosecution to examine natural and independent witnesses. The site plan showed that several neighbours lived immediately next to or opposite the house where the incident allegedly occurred, but none of them were examined. The Bench said the investigating officer gave no reason for not recording or producing the evidence of these neighbours, even though a double murder had allegedly taken place in broad daylight.
The High Court also found the alleged recovery of weapons doubtful. While the investigating officer claimed that certain weapons were recovered at the instance of two accused, the complainant had stated that weapons were already lying near one of the bodies when he reached the scene. In addition, the independent witnesses to the seizure memos were not examined in court. The Bench held that these contradictions and omissions seriously weakened the prosecution version, and that forensic material showing human blood on some articles could not cure the doubtful recoveries.
The State had argued that Section 106 of the Evidence Act should apply because one body was found inside the accused’s house and another outside it, shifting the burden to the accused to explain the circumstances. The High Court rejected this argument, holding that Section 106 cannot be invoked mechanically. The Bench said the principle applies only when the prosecution first proves facts strongly suggesting that no one other than the accused could have committed the crime.
In the present case, the court found that the house was not shown to be locked, there was free ingress and egress, and the accused were not present at the scene when police arrived. The court said the prosecution had failed to establish exclusive possession or knowledge, and therefore the burden did not shift to the accused.
Summing up, the Bench held that the case created suspicion against the accused, but suspicion could not replace proof. Since the chain of circumstantial evidence was incomplete, the conviction and death sentence could not stand.
The High Court accordingly acquitted all four appellants of charges under Sections 302 and 302 read with 34 IPC, directed that they be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case, and sent back the trial court record.
Bottom Line:
Murder case based on circumstantial evidence - Sole eye-witness turned hostile - Father of deceased was not an eye-witness - Non-examination of seizure witnesses and natural independent neighbours near scene of occurrence rendered prosecution case doubtful, Section 106 of Evidence Act held inapplicable where house was open, accused were absent from scene and prosecution failed to establish that only accused could have committed offence - Conviction and death sentence set aside and accused acquitted.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 302, 34, 147, 148 IPC; Section 106 Evidence Act, 1872; Sections 161, 313 Cr.P.C.
Vijay Pal v. State of U.P., (Allahabad)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2993012
