Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(All) 2839

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Vivek Kumar Birla, Praveen Kumar Giri, JJ.
Kalloo – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. - 1585 of 1983
Decided On : 28-05-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : K.N. Dwivedi, Kaustubh Tewari, Shrinath, Sri Nath Dwivedi
For the Respondent: A.G.A.

Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, with the last seen principle and confessions reinforcing the conviction.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 364, and 201 - Conviction for murder, kidnapping, and concealing evidence - Accused-appellant Kalloo convicted for life imprisonment for murder, seven years for kidnapping, and five years for concealing evidence. The evidence included last seen testimony, recovery of clothes and body, and confessions. (Paras 2, 35, 47)

(B) Circumstantial Evidence - The court emphasized the need for a complete chain of circumstantial evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, referencing established legal principles. (Paras 35-46)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was a servant of the victim's family and was last seen with the victim, an 8-year-old boy, who was later found dead. The victim's disappearance was reported promptly, leading to the appellant's arrest and recovery of the victim's body. (Paras 4-9)

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the trial court's conviction based on the circumstantial evidence, including the last seen principle and confessions made by the appellant. (Paras 47-48)

Issues: The main issues were the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence and the reliability of the child witness testimony. (Paras 31, 37)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the circumstantial evidence established a clear link between the appellant and the crime, confirming that the appellant's actions and confessions were consistent with guilt. (Paras 35-46)

Result: Appeal dismissed; conviction confirmed.

Table of Content
1. conviction based on the missing report and subsequent investigation. (Para 2 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. recovery of evidence linking the accused to the crime. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. witness testimonies establishing the accused's presence. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
4. arguments regarding the reliability of circumstantial evidence. (Para 31 , 32 , 33)
5. legal standards for evaluating circumstantial evidence. (Para 35 , 36 , 37)
6. affirmation of the trial court's findings and conviction. (Para 46 , 47)
7. final order dismissing the appeal and confirming the conviction. (Para 49 , 50 , 51)

JUDGMENT :

Praveen Kumar Giri, J.

1. Heard Mr. Sri Nath Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Rahul Asthana, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the record.

2. The above noted appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.06.1983 passed by Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur in Sessions Trial No. 391 of 1982, wherein, the Trial Court has convicted the accused-appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. for life imprisonment under Section 364 I.P.C. for seven years rigorous imprisonment and under Section 201 I.P.C. for five years rigorous imprisonment.

3. The Trial Court’s record is received and paper book is ready. With the assistance of learned counsel for the parties, the entire evidence is re-scrutinized and re-appreciated.

4. Prosecution story is that Sri Basant Lal Gupta was residing in house No.69/196 Bhoosa Toli, Kanpur. His father Sri Anni Lal Gupta lived in house No.61/196 Hoolaganj. Basant Lal Gupta had one son Sudhir Kumar Gupta alias Deynee, one daughter Km. Kalpana Gupta aged about 12 years and another younger daughter. On 23.7.1982, in the evening at about 5.00 or 5.30 P.M., Kalpana Gupta alias Dezi and Sudhir Kumar Gupta alias Daynee had gone to the house of their grandfather to play. After they had gone, Basant Lal Gupta, his wife and the younger daughter went for an evening walk. Besant Lal Gupta had one servant, namely, Kalloo (accused). Kalloo remained at the house, when all these persons left the house, he had also left the house after Basant Lal Gupta has gone out. At about 9:00 P.M., the younger brother of Basant Lal, namely, Kamal, came from the house of his father and enquired whether Daynee had returned because he was not available at his residence. Basant Lal Gupta also left the house to search his son and when he also could not get him he went at the police station and lodged the missing report at 10 P.M. regarding the missing of Sudhir Kumar Gupta alias Daynee.

5. On 23.07.1982, P.W.-1, Basant Lal Gupta (father) had given written information to the police that his 8 years old child, Sudhir Kumar Gupta alias Deynee was missing since 8 O’clock night from his residence. The relevant portion of missing report (Ex. Ka-1) is being quoted below:

6. On 23.07.1982, at 22 O’clock, the police of Police Station Harbans Mohal, District Kanpur, made entry of missing report in General Diary (GD) of Police Station as G.D. No. 40, dated 23.07.1982, time 22 O’clock. The relevant portion of G.D. entry is being quoted herein below:

^^bl le; claryky xqIrk 69@115 HkwLkk Vksyh dkuiqj us gkftj Fkkuk vkdj ,d rgjhj nkf[ky fd;k ckor xqe gks tkus yM+dk lq/kkhj dqekj udy rgjhj lsok esa Fkkuk/;{k gjca’k eksgky Fkkuk dkuiqj ekU;oj fuosnu gS fd gekjk yM+dk lq/khj dqekj xqIrk mez 8 o"kZ jkf= 8 cts gwykxat xqM+eaMh ls dgha ykirk gks x;k gSA d`i;k bldh fjiksVZ fy[k ys rFkk mfpr O;oLFkk djsaA Hkonh; claryky xqIrk 69@115 HkwLkk Vksyh dkuiqj rQlhy yM+dk 8 o"kZ dn ukVk jax lkoayk diM+k igus gjk isUV lQsn cq’kVZ Nih gq;h clarykyA ,oa ckor ryk’k yMdk izk0+ &&&lEcfU/kr jokuk fd;k tkosxkA

ys[kd

cknke flag dk0iq0 rk0

23&7&82

7. On 24.07.1982, at about 7.30 A.M., S.I. Prem Kumar Mishra, P.W.-9, started enquiry/investigation on the basis of missing report. The police as well as family members of missing minor boy Sudhir Kumar Gupta alias Daynee, were searching for the missing child.

8. The accused-appellant, Kalloo,