The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has set aside the conviction of an apprentice-accused in a 1980 murder case, observing that the prosecution failed to establish an uninterrupted and conclusive chain of circumstantial evidence. The Division Bench comprising Justice Chandra Dhari Singh and le Justice Devendra Singh-I allowed the appeal, providing the benefit of doubt to the appellant after finding significant gaps in the prosecution’s narrative regarding the murder of a domestic help.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a First Information Report (FIR) lodged on September 16, 1980, by Dr. Amit Rastogi in Moradabad. According to the prosecution, three servants—Danna alias Ramesh, Barati (the appellant), and Sohan (the deceased)—were employed at the residence of Dr. Rastogi. On the night of September 14/15, 1980, cries of “Babuji, save me” were allegedly heard from the servants’ quarters. Upon inquiry, Danna and Barati claimed they heard nothing and that Sohan was asleep.
The following morning, Barati informed the employers that Sohan and Danna had left for their village. However, suspicion arose when Barati avoided his room and repeatedly visited a coal room. On the night of September 16, Danna returned and, upon being detained and questioned by the employers and neighbors, allegedly confessed to murdering Sohan over a gambling dispute. He then led them to a sack in the coal room containing Sohan’s body. Subsequently, Barati was arrested, and an iron weapon (lohe ka daav) was allegedly recovered at his instance.
The Trial Court, vide judgment dated September 3, 1985, convicted both Danna and Barati under Sections 302/34 and 201 of the I.P.C., sentencing them to life imprisonment. The appeal qua Danna stood abated in 2018 following his demise.
Arguments of the Parties
The counsel for the appellant argued that the entire case rested on circumstantial evidence and that the chain was broken at several crucial links. It was contended that the alleged extra-judicial confession was highly doubtful and made before “interested” witnesses (the employers and their neighbors). The defense further argued that the coal room was accessible to everyone in the house, making the recovery of the body non-exclusive to the accused. Additionally, they pointed out the lack of independent witnesses for the recovery of the weapon and the absence of a forensic report.
The State (Respondent) supported the trial court’s judgment, asserting that the cry for help, the sudden disappearance of the deceased, the confession, and the subsequent recoveries formed a consistent and unbroken chain of events pointing solely to the guilt of the appellants.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The High Court analyzed the principles governing cases based purely on circumstantial evidence, citing the landmark “five golden principles” from Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra. The Court observed:
“It is a settled proposition of law that in cases based purely on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances which must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with any other hypothesis.”
Regarding the extra-judicial confession, the Court noted that such evidence is inherently weak and requires strong corroboration. It remarked that the witnesses (PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3) were not independent and that the confession appeared “doubtful and unnatural.”
On the recovery of the body, the Bench stated:
“Admittedly, the said place is situated within the premises of the complainant and was accessible to all the inmates of the house. Thus, the recovery cannot be said to be exclusively at the instance of the accused so as to conclusively connect them with the crime.”
The Court also highlighted the lack of independent witnesses for the recovery of the murder weapon and the absence of a forensic report connecting the article to the crime. Furthermore, the Court found the alleged motive—a gambling dispute over a small amount—insufficiently grave to impel such a heinous crime.
Citing Jitendra Kumar Mishra @Jittu vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Court emphasized that while appellate courts should be slow to interfere with convictions, they must not “shy away in giving the benefit of doubt” if a plausible alternative view exists.
The Decision
The High Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
“Consequently, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused-appellants.”
Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the 1985 judgment, and acquitted the appellant, Barati, of all charges. As he was already on bail, his bail bonds were cancelled and sureties discharged.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Danna Alias Ramesh and another v. State of U.P.
- Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 2509 of 1985
- Bench: Justice Chandra Dhari Singh and Justice Devendra Singh-I
- Date: April 10, 2026
