Back
2025 Supreme(All) 2180
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Siddhartha Varma, Madan Pal Singh, JJ.
Ramdev - Appellant
Vs.
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. – 538, 461 of 2021
Decided On : 23-05-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Om Narayan Pandey,Vindesh Kumar
For the Respondent: G.A.,Sandeep Kumar Dubey
The prosecution failed to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, relying on circumstantial evidence that lacked a clear connection to the crime.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 201 and 120-B - Conviction for murder and destruction of evidence - Accused-appellants convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302/34 IPC and seven years under Section 201 IPC - Evidence of last seen and forensic analysis were critical to the prosecution's case. (Paras 1, 25, 44, 63)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 437-A - The court found the trial court erred in conviction based on circumstantial evidence without proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 62, 64)
Facts of the case:
The case arose from the murder of Devendra Singh, whose body was found on 14th February 2011. The accused were said to have taken him away prior to his death. (Paras 3, 5, 6)
Findings of Court:
The evidence presented was deemed insufficient to establish the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the conclusion that the trial court's conviction was unwarranted. (Paras 62, 63)
Issues: The court addressed the reliability of witness testimonies and the adequacy of circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the crime. (Paras 44, 62)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that suspicion alone cannot replace proof, and the prosecution failed to establish a clear connection between the accused and the crime. (Paras 59, 62)
Result: Appeals allowed; conviction set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of the appeals and background of the case. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. factual background of the murder case and identification of the deceased. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. details of prosecution witnesses and documentary evidence. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. witness testimonies establishing the last seen theory. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. medical evidence regarding the cause of death. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 6. trial court's findings and conviction of accused. (Para 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 7. arguments presented by the defense counsel. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 8. legal issues regarding the admissibility of secondary evidence. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 9. state's rebuttal and reliance on circumstantial evidence. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44) |
| 10. court's scrutiny of witness credibility and timeline inconsistencies. (Para 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55) |
| 11. analysis of circumstantial evidence and its sufficiency. (Para 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62) |
| 12. final conclusion and order of the court. (Para 63 , 64 , 65 , 66) |
Madan Pal Singh, J.
Preliminary
1. Both the criminal appeals are directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 7th December, 2020 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/POCSO Act, Court No.43, Shahjahanpur in Sessions Trial No. 487 of 2011 (State Vs. Laddan and Another) under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B I.P.C. arising out of Case Crime No. 107 of 2011, Police Station-Jalalabad, District- Shahjahanpur, whereby accused-appellants Ram Dev and Laddan have been convicted for the offence under Section 302/34 and 201 of I.P.C. and have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life along with Rs.20,000/- fine for committing the offence under Section 302/34 I.P.C.; in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months additional imprisonment and seven years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.-10,000/-, for the offence under Section 201 I.P.C.; in default of payment in fine to further undergo two months additional imprisonment. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
2. It may be noted here that under the same impugned judgment, the trial court while deciding the Sessions Trial No. 506 of 2011 (State Vs. Pintu @ Arvind & 2 Others) has acquitted the accused Pintu @ Arvind, Pankaj and Bhudhar for the offence under Section 120-B I.P.C.
Background/Facts
3. Factual matrix of the case is that on 14th Feburary, 2011 at 11:00 a.m., Village Chowkidar, namely, Dharak reported to the Jalalabad Police Station-Jalalabad, District Shahjahanpur that a dead body of unknown person aged about 35 years was lying near the wheat field of one Anwar Shah, on the road side of his village. The said body was also seen by people of nearby places. He assumed that the said corpse was of some outsider. The said information was registered in General Diary as G.D. No. 17 of Police Station-Jalalabad District Shahjahanpur at 11:00 am on the same day i.e. on 14th February, 2011 and after inquest (panchayatnama), the body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem.
4. On the basis of G.D. entry being G.D. No. 46 at 19:40 hrs dated 15th February, 2011, the instant case was registered as Case Crime No. 107 of 2011, under Sections-302 and 201 I.P.C., at Police Station-Jalalabad, District-Shahjahanpur.
5. On 18th February, 2011, on receiving information from an outside source, the first informant Rajesh and his mother Munni Devi (P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 respectively herein) identified the dead body by seeing the clothes and the photograph. Thereafter it came to light that the dead body was of the brother of the first informant (P.W.-1), namely, Devendra Pal (deceased herein). On 20th February, 2011, the first informant/complainant (P.W.-1) submitted an application to the Inspector-in-Charge, Police Station Jalalabad, District-Shahjahanpur that on 13th February, 2011 at 4:00 pm, his brother Devendra Singh (deceased) was called and taken away by two persons, namely, L
