SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(All) 226

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, DEVENDRA SINGH-I, JJ.
Naresh Chaudhary – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Jail Appeal No. 787 of 2016
Decided On : 13-01-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Dharmendra Kumar Chaubey, Himansu Rai, Pravin Kumar Tiwari

The court affirmed that circumstantial evidence must create a complete and unbroken chain establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for a murder conviction under IPC Section 302.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Murder - The appellant was convicted for the murder of his wife based on circumstantial evidence including defendant's confession and forensic findings - The court established several chains of circumstantial evidence demonstrating guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 24, 42)

(B) Circumstantial Evidence - For conviction based on circumstantial evidence, each circumstance must point unerringly to the guilt of the accused, leaving no reasonable doubt of innocence. (Paras 24 - 28)

(C) Standards of Review - Courts evaluate the completeness of circumstantial evidence and must ensure the prosecution demonstration meets required thresholds to support conviction. (Paras 28 - 40)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was accused of strangling his wife to death after an argument. His daughter discovered the body, and evidence pointed to his direct involvement. (Paras 2 - 10)

Findings of Court:
The trial court found the evidence sufficient to connect the appellant to the murder without reasonable doubt. The appeal for overturning conviction was dismissed. (Paras 42, 43)

Issues: The court addressed whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to ensure conviction for murder as per IPC Section 302.

Ratio Decidendi: Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain without gaps; failure to establish these links leads to mandatory acquittal.

Result: The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld.

Table of Content
1. background of appeal and factual context. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. defence arguments challenging circumstantial evidence. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
3. prosecution's rebuttal of defence claims. (Para 19 , 20 , 21)
4. court’s detailed analysis of evidence. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41)
5. conclusion and order of the court. (Para 43 , 44 , 45)

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.

1. The instant Criminal Appeal has been sent from jail by the accused-appellant, Naresh Chaudhary against a judgment dated 27.07.2015 and order dated 30.07.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Ghaziabad in Sessions Trial No. 1999 of 2009 arising out of Case Crime No. 971 of 2009, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Vijaynagar, district Ghaziabad, whereby the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the appellant was further directed to undergo imprisonment of two years.

Brief Facts

2. In nutshell, the case of the prosecution as set up in the first information report is that a written report was filed by Preeti Chaudhary, daughter of Naresh Chaudhary, resident of Lane No. 1, 36/4 Krishna Nagar Bagu, Ghaziabad that in the night intervening 2/3.09.2009 her mother-Meera Chaudhary (herein after referred to as “the deceased”) has been strangulated to death by her father-Naresh Chaudhary (hereinafter referred to as “the accused-appelant”) by Lungi. It is mentioned in the report that at about 9:30 PM, when her mother came to house after finishing her duties, an altercation took place between the deceased and the accused-appellant. Thereafter, the deceased cooked food and after having dinner, she went to the roof for sleeping, whereas the accused- appellant stayed with the children at downstairs. The F.I.R. further alleged that when the informant suddenly woke up in the midnight, she found the accused-appellant missing. She thought that he (accused- appellant) went to upstairs, where deceased was sleeping. The F.I.R. further alleges that in the next morning, when her brother, namely, Amit went to the roof in search of her mother (deceased), he saw that the deceased was lying dead. On an alarm being raised by her brother, she went upstairs and saw that her mother (deceased) was strangulated to death by the same Lungi, which was worn by her father last night. She also saw that some bangles and mangalsutra of her mother were also broken and scattered.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, the First Information Report was lodged at Case Crime No. 971 of 2009, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Vijay Nagar, District Ghaziabad, which was marked as Ext. Ka-5.

4. After registration of the aforesaid case, the law set into motion and investigation of the case was entrusted to S.I. Dalchand Tiwari, PW-7, who copied the F.I.R. and GD in the case diary and recorded the statement of the first informant. He also inspected the spot along with the first informant and collected Lungi, broken bangles, one hair clip and prepared recovery memo thereof, which was marked as Ext.Ka-5. He also recorded the statement of Chik writer of the F.I.R. Constable Rameshwar Tyagi, PW-6 and made a search of the accused-appellant. On 09.09.2009, he recorded the statement of the accused in Kutchery, who confessed to his crime. He also copied the post-mortem report in the case diary, recorded the statement of the first informant and witnesses of inquest. He also recorded the statement of Ankit Chaudhary. He also prepared site plan, which was marked as Ext.Ka-6. Thereafter, this witness has been transferred and investigation of the case was entrusted to Station House Officer Sudhir Kumar Tyagi, PW-8.

5. S.O. Sudhir Kumar Tyagi, PW-8, in his examination-in-chief, which was recorded on 06.11.2012, deposed that on 02.10.2009, he was entrusted the investigation of pending

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top