Unnatural Conduct of Witnesses, Defective Investigation Leads Allahabad HC to Acquit Two in 2013 Murder-Rape Case: S.302, 376, 201 IPC - 2025-09-16

Allahabad High Court Acquits Two in Decade-Old Murder Case, Cites Unreliable Witnesses and Flawed Investigation

Allahabad, India – The Allahabad High Court has acquitted Manjeet Kumar and Gaurav Singh in a 2013 murder, rape, and evidence tampering case, overturning their life sentences. The division bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Madan Pal Singh ruled that the prosecution's case, built entirely on circumstantial evidence, failed to establish an unbroken chain of events pointing exclusively to the guilt of the accused.

The court found the "last seen" evidence to be wholly unreliable, criticized the "non-existent" motive, and highlighted significant lapses in the investigation, including the failure to conduct forensic tests and improper questioning of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

---

Case Background: A Tale of Love, Murder, and Circumstance

In April 2013, the body of a 24-year-old woman, Renu, was discovered behind a farmhouse in Ghaziabad. The post-mortem confirmed death by strangulation. The victim's brother, Sandeep Tomar, filed an FIR alleging that Manjeet Kumar, who was in a long-term relationship with his sister, had taken her away in his Scorpio car the previous night.

The prosecution alleged that Manjeet, despite being married, was pressuring Renu to marry him. Upon her refusal, he, along with his brother-in-law Gaurav Singh, allegedly raped and murdered her at Gaurav's apartment. They were accused of then wrapping the body in a quilt, transporting it in an Alto car, and dumping it to destroy evidence.

In 2015, the Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, convicted both Manjeet and Gaurav for murder (Section 302 IPC) and destroying evidence (Section 201 IPC), sentencing them to life imprisonment. Manjeet was also convicted of rape (Section 376 IPC) and handed an additional life sentence. The appellants challenged this conviction before the High Court.

---

Appellants' Arguments: A Prosecution Case Riddled with Holes

The defense counsel argued that the prosecution's case was a house of cards, built on suspicion rather than proof. Key arguments included:

• Unreliable "Last Seen" Theory: The primary witnesses mentioned in the FIR (the victim's landlord and his family) were never examined. Instead, the prosecution relied on two "chance witnesses"—the victim's maternal and paternal uncles (Radhey Shyam and Vijay Kumar)—who claimed to have spotted the victim with the accused at a traffic light. The defense argued their conduct was "wholly unnatural," as they did not react, inform the family, or stop their own journey to search for a groom for the same girl.
• No Motive: The alleged motive of "pressure to marry" was deemed fallacious, as Manjeet was already married. The defense pointed out that the victim's family strongly disapproved of her consensual relationship with Manjeet, suggesting a potential motive for an "honour killing" by the family itself.
• Failed Recoveries and Lack of Forensic Evidence: Critical pieces of evidence, such as the Scorpio car and the quilt used to wrap the body, were never recovered. While police claimed to have found blood-stained items and the victim's slipper at Gaurav's apartment, there was no serological or DNA report to prove the blood was human or that it matched the victim's. Furthermore, though spermatozoa were found on a vaginal slide, no DNA test was done to link it to the accused.
• Procedural Violations: The defense highlighted the investigating officer's failure to follow the mandatory procedure under Section 27 of the Evidence Act for recording disclosure statements leading to recoveries. They also argued that the trial court's examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was defective, as it clubbed all evidence into broad questions, denying the accused a fair opportunity to explain each incriminating circumstance.

---

High Court's Decisive Reasoning: A Failure to Prove Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt

The High Court meticulously dismantled the prosecution's case, agreeing with the defense on almost every point.

In a pivotal part of its judgment, the bench discredited the "last seen" witnesses:

"In view of such unnatural conduct proven on record, we have no hesitation to infer that the witness Radhey Shyam (P.W.-3) and Vijay Kumar (P.W.-5) had not seen the deceased in the company of the main accused... their chance presence set up by the prosecution... cannot be believed. Thus, a reasonable doubt exists as to the evidence of last seen, as adduced."

The court found the prosecution's motive theory to be untenable:

"Once it was proven by the prosecution that the appellant Manjeet Kumar continued to maintain his illicit relationship with the deceased despite strong objection by her family, the prosecution may not maintain that therefore, the appellant Manjeet Kumar had a strong motive to murder the deceased. Thus, no motive has been proved..."

The bench also came down heavily on the investigative shortcomings, noting the absence of crucial forensic links.

"no Serological report exists to prove that the blood on any of the recovered items was of human origin, less so of the deceased... Equally appalling is the fact that there is no forensic/ DNA report to trace the semen found in the vaginal swab report claimed to be of the accused Manjeet Kumar."

Finally, the court condemned the trial court's perfunctory handling of the accused's examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., stating it "befuddled them or left them with no chance to offer any meaningful response."

---

Verdict and Implications

Finding that the chain of circumstantial evidence was "far from complete," with crucial links missing and major circumstances unproven, the High Court allowed the appeals.

"In absence of evidence, the appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them," the court ordered, setting aside the 2015 conviction and sentence. Manjeet Kumar and Gaurav Singh, who were out on bail, have been directed not to surrender.

The judgment serves as a stern reminder of the high burden of proof required in cases based on circumstantial evidence and underscores the judiciary's role in scrutinizing investigations for fairness and procedural integrity.