The Allahabad High Court has set aside the conviction of a man sentenced to life imprisonment in a 1987 rape and murder case, ruling that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances pointing consistently to the guilt of the accused. The Division Bench comprising Justice Siddharth and Justice Prashant Mishra-I observed that the testimony of “chance witnesses” did not inspire confidence and that the possibility of the deceased being murdered by her own relatives could not be ruled out.
The appeal was preferred by Om Prakash against the judgment and order dated October 12, 1987, passed by the Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat. The trial court had convicted the appellant under Section 302 (murder) and Section 376 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sentencing him to life imprisonment and seven years of rigorous imprisonment, respectively. The High Court, in its verdict delivered on January 16, 2026, allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant, giving him the benefit of the doubt.
Background of the Case
The incident occurred on February 15, 1987, in Village Tarbiatpur. The prosecution alleged that the deceased, Km. Sudha (19), was left alone at her uncle Raj Kumar’s house while other family members went to Bilhaur Hospital, as Raj Kumar’s daughter-in-law was in labor.
According to the complainant, Sheo Kumar (PW-2), he and his nephew Rameshwar returned to the house around 2:00 PM and saw the accused, Om Prakash, along with an unknown person rushing out. Upon entering the house, they found Sudha dead on a cot with a wound on her neck and signs suggesting rape. A First Information Report (FIR) was lodged on the same day.
Arguments of the Parties
For the Appellant: Learned Amicus Curiae, Sri Krishna Kant Dubey, argued that the case was based on circumstantial evidence that failed to prove the appellant’s guilt. He submitted:
- Medical Evidence: The post-mortem report indicated the deceased’s hymen was already ruptured with old tags, suggesting she was “used to sexual intercourse.”
- Unnatural Conduct: The conduct of witnesses Sheo Kumar and Rameshwar was unnatural as they did not question the accused while he was leaving the house.
- Alternative Theory: The defense suggested a possibility of “honor killing,” arguing that the male members of the family might have committed the murder in anger after discovering the deceased’s conduct.
- Weapon Discrepancy: The injury on the neck was too deep and wide to be caused by a knife, which was the weapon allegedly assigned to the accused by witnesses later in the investigation.
For the State: Learned AGA-Ist, Mrs. Manju Thakur, opposed the appeal, arguing that:
- Witnesses saw the accused leaving the scene immediately after the occurrence.
- A book and a postcard addressed to the accused were recovered from the spot, establishing his presence.
- The medical evidence confirmed rape and murder.
Court’s Analysis
The High Court scrutinized the evidence on the touchstone of settled law regarding circumstantial evidence and “chance witnesses.”
1. Standard of Proof for Circumstantial Evidence Citing the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, the Bench reiterated that the circumstances “must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused” and must exclude every other possible hypothesis.
2. Reliability of “Chance Witnesses” The Court treated PW-2 (Sheo Kumar) and PW-3 (Laxmi Shanker) as “chance witnesses.” Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Manoj and Ors. vs. State of U.P., the Bench observed that the evidence of such witnesses requires “very cautious and strict scrutiny.”
- The Court noted that PW-2 claimed to have returned to “see his fields” but went straight to the house, which remained uncorroborated.
- PW-3, a neighbor, claimed to see the accused leaving with a knife but raised no alarm. The Court observed: “The conduct of P.W.-3 of not making any effort to question or stop Om Prakash while fleeing from the place of incident nor of raising any alarm seeing him armed with knife does not makes his testimony worth reliance.”
3. Medical Evidence and Weapon Discrepancy The post-mortem revealed a bone-deep incised wound (12 cm x 3.5 cm) cutting through the trachea and carotid artery. The Court observed:
“The injury of such magnitude could have been caused by some hard hitting and heavy weapon like axe, farsa, chapad and not by knife assigned to the appellant and an unknown accused.”
4. Possibility of Involvement of Relatives The Court found force in the defense’s argument regarding the potential involvement of family members, noting the “enormity of the injury” suggested it was caused in anger. The Bench stated:
“The argument of defence that the deceased was murdered by her own relatives in her house after being seen with some one indulging in physical relationship is a possibility which cannot be ruled out… The prosecution case of removal of all family members from the house of Raj Kumar at the time of incident lends credence to the fact that the alleged offence was committed in a planned manner.”
Decision
The High Court concluded that the prosecution failed to complete the chain of circumstances to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court held:
“Considering the totality of facts and circumstances we are of the view that the prosecution case does not inspire confidence and the appellant deserves to be extended benefit of doubt.”
Order:
- The appeal is allowed.
- The judgment and order dated 12.10.1987 passed by the trial court is set aside.
- The appellant is acquitted, his bail bonds are cancelled, and sureties discharged.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Om Prakash vs. State of U.P.
- Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 2480 of 1987
- Bench: Justice Siddharth and Justice Prashant Mishra-I
- Counsel for Appellant: Krishna Kant Dubey (Amicus Curiae), A. Rathore, Mahendra Pratap Singh
- Counsel for Respondent: Mrs. Manju Thakur, AGA-Ist
