2026 Supreme(All) 518

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW
Rajesh Singh Chauhan, Zafeer Ahmad, JJ.
Surendra Kumar Verma - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. - 1139 of 2016
Criminal Appeal No. - 2175 of 2022
Decided On : 21-05-2026

In cases of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete, unbroken chain of incriminating facts that excludes every hypothesis of innocence. Section 106 of the Evidence Act cannot be used to shift the burden of proof onto the accused to fill lacunae in the prosecution's own case.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302/34 and 201 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 313 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 106 - Circumstantial evidence - Conviction rests on proving a complete and unbroken chain of incriminating circumstances - Prosecution failing to establish foundational facts renders circumstantial evidence insufficient for conviction (Paras 50, 88-91).

(B) Extra-judicial confession - Evidentiary value - Mere utterance without independent corroboration and cogent proof is insufficient for conviction - Inconsistency in testimony and omission of confession in initial reports severely undermines credibility (Paras 35, 41-42).

(C) Procedure - Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Mandatory duty to put every incriminating circumstance to the accused - Failure to do so causes substantial prejudice and precludes the court from relying on omitted evidence (Paras 43-45).

(D) Burden of Proof - Section 106 of the Evidence Act - Does not relieve the prosecution of its primary burden of proving guilt - Cannot be invoked to fill lacunae or shift the burden onto the accused without first establishing foundational facts (Paras 50-58). (E) Delay in First Information Report - Substantial unexplained delay provides opportunity for deliberation and fabrication, thereby necessitating rigorous scrutiny of the prosecution's case (Paras 59, 72-73).

Facts of the case:
Two children were discovered deceased in a well. The prosecution alleged that the mother and a co-accused had murdered them due to an illicit relationship. Following the recovery of the bodies and an inquest, a criminal case was registered. The trial court convicted the appellants based on an alleged extra-judicial confession and circumstantial evidence. The appellants challenged this, arguing a lack of a complete chain of evidence and inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove any direct or circumstantial link connecting the appellants to the crime. Witnesses provided contradictory versions of the alleged confession, which was not documented early in the investigation. Furthermore, medical evidence confirmed death by drowning but did not exclude accidental causes, and the prosecution failed to establish the foundational chain of circumstances necessary for conviction.

Issues: Whether the conviction for murder and destruction of evidence based on circumstantial evidence and an extra-judicial confession is sustainable, and whether the burden of proof under Section 106 can be invoked when foundational facts remain unproven.

Ratio Decidendi: In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of events must be complete and point exclusively to the guilt of the accused, excluding any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Because the prosecution failed to prove the foundational facts and relied on evidence that suffered from material improvements and contradictions, the burden did not shift to the accused, and the conviction could not be maintained.

Result: Appeals allowed; convictions set aside.