Allahabad High Court
Baboo Ram vs State Of U.P. on 29 July, 2025
Author: Saumitra Dayal Singh
Bench: Saumitra Dayal Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:124774-DB
Reserved on 16.07.2025
Delivered on 29.07.2025
Court No. - 44
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL. No. - 6773 of 2017
Appellant :- Baboo Ram
Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Abhishek Mayank,Shrawan Kumar Dubey,Yogesh Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- Abhishek Srivastava,Arvind Agrawal,G.A.,Shashi Dhar Pandey
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Hon'ble Madan Pal Singh,J.
(Per Hon'ble Madan Pal Singh,J.)
1. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 01.11.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Firozabad, in Session Trial No. 726 of 2013 (State Vs. Baboo Ram & others), arsing out of Case Crime No. 364 of 2013, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station-Linepar, District-Firozabad, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.15,000/-. In case of default of payment of fine, he has to undergo six months additional imprisonment.
2. Facts giving rise to the present appeal may be summarized as under:-
(i). The prosecution case in brief is that on the basis of Written Report dated 17.09.2013, of the informant Data Ram (P.W.-1), resident of Datauji Khurd, P.S. Linepar, District Firozabad, an FIR was lodged stating therein that on 17.09.2013 at about 7.00 PM, when his brother Jagmohan was sitting at home alongwith his daughter-Shalini, sister-Uma and the informant was also standing there, the accused Baboo Ram son of Anaar Singh alongwith one unknown person came there and said to Jagmohan, let's go outside for a smoke a (cigarette/'bidi'). Previously as well Jagmohan had gone with them, so he went alongwith them, and the family members of Jagmohan did not pay any special attention, at that time. The informant further stated that his brother Jagmohan was doing the work of money lending. Accused Baboo Ram used to borrow and get arranged borrowing for others. A few days ago, on account of non payment of lacs of rupees, some altercation took place between his brother and accused, as a result of which, Baboo Ram felt insulted and due to this very reason, the appellant bore animosity towards his brother. As soon as his brother and the accused persons reached near Mohalla Omnagar, Nai Abadi in the bank of Nala, they shot Jagmohan and fled from there. The Written Report was marked as Ex.Ka-1.
(ii). On the basis of tehrir submitted by the informant, Case Crime No. 364 of 2013, under Sections 302/34 IPC, Police Station Linepar, District Firozabad, was registered against the accused persons and investigation ensued.
(iii). During the course of investigation, panchayatnama was conducted on the same day i.e. 17.09.2013, which was marked as Ext. Ka-2 and the body was sent for autopsy.
(iv). The autopsy of the dead body of Jagmohan was conducted on 18.09.2013 at 3.00 AM (night) by Dr. Anand Kumar. It was marked as Ex. Ka-7.
(v). After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused appellant in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad, under Sections 302 IPC, and cognizance thereupon was taken on 18.10.2013 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad and thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Sessions on 02.05.2016 for trial. The charge-sheet was marked as Ex. Ka-12.
(vi). That on the basis of evidence collected during investigation, vide order dated 18.04.2014, charges were framed against the appellant under Section 302/34 IPC. The appellant denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
(vii). The prosecution to prove its case had examined P.W.1-Data Ram (informant of the case), P.W.2-Shalini, P.W.3-Panna Lal, P.W.4-Raja Ram, P.W.5-Chhotey Lal, P.W.6-Kishan, P.W.7-Dr. Anand Kumar, P.W.8-Pravesh Kumar Singh, P.W.9-Gandharv Singh, P.W.10-Virendra Singh and P.W.11-Braj Lal Verma.
(viii). The prosecution in support of its case had also produced oral as well as documentary evidence, which were marked as follows:
(a) Written Report Ex. Ka-1, (b) inquest report Ex. Ka-2, (c) Postmortem Report Ex. Ka-7, (d) Recovery memo of 'country made pistol' and empty cartridge Ex. Ka-10, (e) First Information Report- (17.09.2013) Ex. Ka-3, (05.10.2013) Ex. Ka-5, (20.09.2013) Ex. Ka-13, (f) Site Plan of the place of incident -(17.09.2013) Ex. Ka-9, (05.10.2013) Ex. Ka-11, (06.10.2013) Ex. Ka -15, (08.10.2013) Ex. Ka -24, 25, 26, 27, (g) Charge-sheet- (11.10.2013) Ex. Ka-12, (23.10.2013) Ex. Ka-17 and 28, (18.11.2013) Ex. Ka-19,21,23, (h) Order of District Magistrate-(18.11.2013) Ex. Ka-18, 20, 22, (21.10.2013) Ex. Ka-16,
3. Heard Shri Abhishek Mayank, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Nagendra Kumar Srivastava, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-respondent and Shri Manoj Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the informant.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly argued that the story setup by the prosecution is false and the eye witnesses, are planted, as they are closely related to the deceased. It is further argued that in the testimonies of the eye witnesses Panna Lal (P.W.3) and Raja Ram (P.W.4), there are material contradictions in the examination-in-chief and cross-examination as well, on the point of shot fired and the involvement of the number of accused. It is further argued that the testimony of eye witnesses also does not corroborate with the medical evidence.
5. It is further argued that the prosecution had taken two stands. On one hand, the prosecution case based on totally circumstantial evidence and on the other hand, prosecution relies upon the direct evidence, which is not permissible. It is also argued that the instant motive which was set forth by the prosecution is that, a few days ago to the incident an altercation took place between the accused and the deceased with regard to repeated demand of borrowed money by the deceased, due to which, the accused felt insulted and killed the deceased, but this motive does not find corroboration by any evidence led by the prosecution, thus, the instant motive does not help to the prosecution, in any manner.
6. On the other hand, learned AGA appearing for the State has argued that P.W.1- Data Ram and P.W.2-Shalini, the brother and daughter of the deceased, respectively, had categorically stated that accused along with one other person (stout built man) arrived at his home and took the deceased with him at about 7.30 pm on 17.09.2013 and within two hours the deceased was got murdered, which clearly goes to show that Baboo Ram killed the deceased. He further argued that eye witnesses Panna Lal (P.W.3) and Raja Ram (P.W.4) had seen the occurrence and narrated before the trial court about the manner in which the deceased was killed by causing firearm injury. The testimony of both the witnesses corroborate with each other, hence, there is no reason to disbelieve the testimonies of these two eye witnesses.
7. It is also argued that the motive behind the commission of the crime also stands proved. It is further argued that the motive which has been narrated by the informant as well as the daughter of the deceased stands fully proved by the prosecution.
8. Before discussing the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, it is necessary to have a glance on the evidence recorded by the trial court.
9. P.W.1-Dataram, in his examination-in-chief has stated that the incident took place on 17.09.2013. At around 7'o clock he was standing at the door of his house. There Baboo Ram along with a stout built person whom he could recognize, came to his house and asked him out to smoke a Cigarette/ 'bidi'. He had earlier visited his brother Jagmohan. Once there was an altercation between Baboo Ram and the deceased on account of non payment of lacs of rupees, as a result of which, Baboo Ram felt insulted and due to this very reason, the appellant bore animosity towards his brother-Jagmohan and killed his brother. Someone informed the informant about the incident, on which, Panna Lal, Rajaram, Geetam Singh of the village told that Baboo Ram and a stout built person killed his brother and fled. Thereafter, the body of the deceased was sent to the hospital. Then informant approached the Police Station and on the dictate of informant a Written Report, scribed by Dhanveer Singh was handed over to the police. The Written Report was marked as Ex. Ka-1.
10. P.W.2- Shalini, (daughter of the deceased), in her examination-in-chief has stated that the incident took place on 17.09.2013, at around 7'o clock where Baboo Ram and a unknown stout built person came there and took her father on their bike to smoke a Cigarette/'bidi'. Her father had some money dealing with Baboo Ram due to which some hot exchange of words took place between them. On account of this, the accused Baboo Ram got annoyed with her father. When her father had gone with the accused-appellant, she was going to cook food, she heard commotion outside, that Jagmohan had been shot. Then they went to the hospital where the dead body of her father was kept. She also stated that she can identify a stout built person on his appearance.
11. P.W.3-Panna Lal, in his examination-in-chief stated that the incident took place on 17.09.2013, at around 7:30 in the evening, while he was returning back to his house from Fatehabad. He met Ishwari, Vikki @ Vikas Geetam, Baboo Ram, Jagmohan at the Santnagar culvert, he wanted to stop them but they did not. They stopped a bike after 20-30 paces. On the exhortation of Baboo Ram and Geetam Singh, Ishwari and Vikki whipped out tamancha and fired a shot each on Jagmohan. They rushed towards them, but accused persons fled towards Fatehabad road. He saw the incident but did not tell anyone in the village, at that time.
12. P.W.4- Rajaram, in his examination-in-chief, stated that the incident took place on 17.09.2013, at around 7:30 in the evening. He was returning from Panna Lal's daughter house with his brother Panna Lal and Geetam Singh. On the way, they met Baboo Ram, Jagmohan and Vikki on a motorcycle. He called out but they did not hear him nor they saw him. Baboo Ram shot Jagmohan near Omnagar culvert and fled. After sustaining gun shot injury his nephew-Jagmohan fell down.
13. P.W.5- Head Constable, Chhote Lal, in his examination-in-chief has stated before the trial court that on 17.09.2013 he was posted as Inspector Outpost Incharge at Police Station -Linepaar, Ramnagar, Firozabad. On the same day at 9:50 p.m. the inquest of the deceased Jagmohan was prepared by him on the dictate of SO Mr. Pravesh Kumar.
14. P.W.6- Constable Shri Kishan, in his examination-in-chief has stated that on 17.09.2013 he was posted as Constable Clerk at Police Station Linepar, Firozabad. On that day Shri Data Ram alongwith his companions Rajaram, Sudhir, Ram Saran, Yatendra, resident of Datauji Khurd, Ravi and Pawan, resident of Haud, P.S. Dabhi, District Agra, came to the Police Station and brought a written complaint scribed by Dhanveer Singh, resident of Labour Colony, Firozabad. On the basis of written complaint chik no. 162/13, case crime no. 364/13 under Section 302 IPC was registered against Baboo Ram and one unknown person.
15. P.W.7- Dr. Anand Kumar, in his examination-in-chief has stated that on 17.09.2013, he was posted as Medical Officer. The postmortem of the dead body of the deceased was conducted by him at 3:00 a.m. (Night) on the same day. In the postmortem, he noted the following ante-mortem injuries:
1. Abrasion 3 cm x 2 cm on the right side of fore head, just above the right eyebrow.
2. Gun shot wound of entry 1.5cm x 1.5 cm x through and through over the lateral aspect of left side chest 8 cm below and laterally to axilla, surrounding by blackening and tattooing 6 cm. x 7 cm. Margins are inverted and lacerated.
3. Gun shot wound of exit 2 cm x 1.5 cm x communicated injury no. 2 over the right side front of chest, 6 cm medially to right nipple. Margins are inverted and lacerated. No blackening and tattooing.
4. Abrasion 3 cm x 3 cm on the front of right knee.
As to the immediate cause of death, it was recorded, "shock and haemorrhage" due to ante-mortem gun shot injuries". The said autopsy report is Ex.Ka-7.
16. P.W.8- Pravesh Kumar Singh, Station House Officer, Shikobabad in his examination-in-chief has stated that on 17.09.2013, he was posted as Station House officer, P.S. Linepar. He stated that the incident is of 17.09.2013 at about 7:30 pm and the informant Data Ram has lodged a report against Baboo Ram and one unknown person regarding death of Jagmohan. He proved the investigation conducted by him.
17. P.W.9- Sub Constable 308 Gandharv Singh, in his examination-in-chief had stated that on 20.09.2013 he was posted as Constable Clerk at police Station Linepar, District Firozabad. He proved the fard and five bundle seal material, three Tamancha, six cartridges 315 bore, two mobile phones Nokia, used in the commission of offence, case crime no. 364/2013, under Section 302 IPC and one recovered Motorcycle Hero Honda CBZ No. UP 83/2570, as Ex. Ka-13 and further proved paper no. 6A/3 as Ex. Ka-14.
18. P.W.10-Head Constable Civil Police 20 Virendra Singh, P.S. Kotwali, District Mathura, in his examination-in-chief has stated that on 05.10.2013, he was posted at police station Linepar, District Firozabad. He proved the Site plan Ex. Ka-15, order of the Magistrate Ex. Ka-16, chargesheet no. 186/13 under Section 25 of Arms Act filed against the accused Vikki @ Vikas, as Ex. Ka-17, the permission to prosecute Ex. Ka-18 and the chargesheet no. 211 of 2013 filed against the accused Ishwar Dayal @ Ishwari under Section 25 of Arms Act, as Ex. Ka-19. Order granting permission to prosecute accused Baboo Ram, under Section 25 of Arms Act, as Ex. Ka-20, chargesheet against accused Baboo Ram as Ex. Ka-21, permission to prosecute accused Geetam Singh, as Ex. Ka-22 and chargesheet against accused Geetam Singh, under Section 25 of the Arms Act as Ex. Ka-23.
19. P.W.11- Brij Lal Verma, Inspector Crime Branch Mainpuri in his examination-in-chief has stated that in the year 2013, he was posted as Sub-Inspector at Police Station Linepar, Firozabad. He had taken over the investigation of Case Crime No. 366/13, U/s 25 Arms Act (State vs. Ishwardayal), Case Crime No. 367/13, U/s 25 Arms Act (State vs. Baboo Ram), Case Crime No. 368/13, U/s 25 Arms Act (State vs. Geetam Singh), Case Crime No. 369/13, U/s 420 IPC, 41/102 Cr.P.C., 411 IPC. He recorded the statement of witnesses U/s 161 Cr.P.C. He inspected the place of incident and prepared Naksha Nazari and lastly, submitted the chargesheet in the aforementioned cases which have been marked as Ex. Ka-24, 25, 26,27 and 28.
20. After closing of the prosecution evidence, statements of the accused persons under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded. The accused persons stated before the trial court that they had been falsely implicated in the present case. They further stated that the witnesses due to enmity, deposed against them.
21. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence available on record.
22. From the perusal of records and having heard the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, we find that the eye witnesses Data Ram (P.W.1) and Shalini (P.W.2) have claimed themselves to be an eye witnesses of last seen and both stated that on 17.09.2013 at about 7:30 pm when they were present at their home, the accused along with another person (stout built man) came at their house and took the deceased with them on the pretext of smoking Cigarettes/'bidi'. It is admitted by both the witnesses that the accused Baboo Ram used to often visit the house of the deceased with regard to the money lending business. It appears that the accused and deceased were well known to each other prior to the incident and they were involved in the business of money lending and the accused had ample opportunity to eliminate the deceased when he could find him alone at any lonely place. More over both the witnesses P.W-1 and P.W.-2 stated in their examination-in-chief that a few days ago some altercation took place between the accused and deceased. On this premise, it does not appear believable that the deceased would go with him even after that alleged altercation or that accused personally would come to the house of the deceased to call him in the presence of his family members. Rather, the accused would have sent someone else to call him. Hence, if the accused had any intention to kill the deceased, he would not have taken the deceased from his house in the presence of his family members. That conduct described by those prosecution witnesses is wholly unnatural, in the context of the occurrence. It is also a fact that the unknown stoutly built man was never identified or tried. Yet, he is also described to be one of the persons who met the deceased in the presence of the prosecution witnesses and took the deceased with him. In that status of facts, we find the evidence of last seen is not free from doubt.
23. So far as motive is concerned, P.W.1-Data Ram has deposed that he did not know to whom how much money the deceased had lent. He also admitted that he had not seen any scuffle or altercation between the accused and the deceased. He further admitted in his cross-examination at page- 9A/3 that prior to the 15-20 days of the incident some altercation was took place at about 8-9 hours near the temple, but he admitted that this incident was not seen by him and even did not know the name of any person, who had seen the same and told him.
24. Likewise, we perused the testimony of Shalini (P.W.2), the daughter of the deceased. She also admitted in her cross-examination at page 12A/3 at the bottom that she did not know that her father had ever insulted the accused Baboo Ram on account of money lending. At the same place, she further admitted that she had never seen any dispute or altercation between the accused and the deceased regarding money lending. She also stated that no such statement had been given by her to the investigation officer and was unaware how such statement had been recorded by the Investigation Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
25. Thus, both the witnesses had categorically deposed that they had never seen any scuffle or altercation having taken place in between the accused and the deceased regarding money transaction, as such, when there is no scuffle or altercation had been taken place, the theory of prosecution that the accused on account of altercation felt insulted and due to this very reason, he committed the murder of the deceased, does not inspire any confidence.
26. So far as the testimony of Panna Lal (P.W.-3) and Raja Ram (P.W.4) are concerned, we find that P.W.-3 has deposed in his examination-in-chief that while he was returning to his house at 7:30 to 8:00 pm on 17.09.2013, he met Ishwari, Vikki @ Vikas, Geetam, Baboo Ram and Jagmohan near the culvert at Sant Nagar, he wanted to stop them but they did not and after 25-30 paces ahead they stopped their motorcycle and on the exhortation of Baboo Ram and Geetam Singh, Ishwari and Vikki @ Vikas fired shots on Jagmohan and fled away from the place of occurrence. While Raja Ram (P.W.-4) in his examination-in-chief has deposed that when he was returning alongwith Geetam Singh and Panna Lal from the in-laws of her daughter, he met Baboo Ram, Jagmohan and Vikki @ Vikas, in the way on motorcycle and Baboo Ram shot Jagmohan at the culvert of Om Nagar.
27. It is worthwhile to mention here that Rajaram (P.W.4) in his examination-in-chief named only two accused, Baboo Ram and Vikki @ Vikas and assigned the role of firing to accused Baboo Ram, while Panna Lal (P.W.-3) in his examination-in-chief has stated that he saw four accused persons alongwith Jagmohan and on the exhortation of Baboo Ram and Geetam Singh, Ishwari and Vikki @ Vikas shot the deceased. At this point, there are material contradictions with regard to the involvement of the number of accused and who shot the deceased while they were claiming themselves that they have seen the incident together from the 25-30 paces away.
28. Upon deeper scrutiny of the testimonies of these eye witnesses, it transpires that Panna Lal (P.W.-3) in his cross-examination at page 13A/7, he deposed that he had not seen that who had fired the first shot on the deceased and who fired the second shot. He further stated that he saw two gunshot wounds on the body of the deceased and the deceased had sustained two bullet injuries on his chest. Further, Raja Ram (P.W.-4) in his cross-examination has narrated almost entirely different version of the occurrence at page 14A/7, which is quoted below:
"मेरे सामने कुल 2 गोली चली। उसमें से बाबू के द्वारा चलायी गयी गोली मेरे भतीजे जगमोहन को लगी थी। दूसरी गोली नहीं लगी थी। जो गोली मेरे भतीजे को नहीं लगी वह मोटे आदमी ने नहीं चलायी थी वह दूसरी गोली भी बाबूराम ने चलाई थी। फिर स्वयं कहा दूसरी गोली बाबूराम ने नहीं चलायी, दूसरी मोटर साईकिल वाले व्यक्ति ने चलायी थी उसका नाम नहीं मालूम। मोटे आदमी ने मेरे सामने कभी गोली नहीं चलायी।"
29. From the perusal of the above quoted testimony of Raja Ram (P.W.4), we find that he had given confusing version of the incident. On one hand, he stated that Baboo Ram shot the deceased and on the other hand, he stated that second shot was also fired by the accused Baboo Ram and later on, he denied the same and stated that second fire was shot by some other person, who he does not know, as well as he further stated that the stout built man had never opened fire. If the testimony of this witness is to be examined together with the testimony of Panna Lal (P.W.-3), it appears that both the witnesses have narrated different version of the incident regarding the manner of occurrence, which renders their presence highly doubtful at the place of incident. If both the witnesses were present at 25-30 paces away from the place of occurrence, as claimed by them, then they would have described the chronology of incident similarly/consistently. Panna Lal (P.W.-3) had assigned the role of causing injury from firearm to Ishwari and Vikki @ Vikas, while Raja Ram (P.W.-4) had assigned the role of causing injury from the firearm to Baboo Ram and one unknown person.
30. Moreover, the testimonies of both the eye witnesses do not corroborate with the medical evidence, inasmuch as postmortem report, reflects only one gunshot injury through and through. While Panna Lal (P.W.-3) emphasized that he had seen two gunshot wounds on the chest of the deceased. In our view, it appears that after having seen the body of the deceased with two gunshot wounds and not knowing that one is an entry wound and the other exit, this witness falsely claimed that the deceased had sustained two gunshot wounds caused by Ishwari and Vikki @ Vikas. That creates a serious doubt as to the presence of these witnesses at spot. Furthermore, these witnesses were well known to the accused persons by their names. The incident is said to be occurred 10-12 paces away from where these witnesses were present. One of the witness also claimed that he tried to stop the accused persons while they were passing in front of them. As such, it was very unnatural and therefore unbelievable that the accused would have murdered the deceased in presence of family members of the deceased, though they first took him away from his home.
31. It is also pertinent to mention that Raja Ram (P.W.-4) in his cross-examination has stated that he had gone to the house of his younger brother's daughter Kamlesh for some settlement and at the time when incident occurred, he was at the house of his niece Kamlesh, therefore, the version of Raja Ram (P.W.-4) narrated in his examination-in-chief that he alongwith his brothers saw the accused opening fire on the deceased, stands falsified itself. In view of their contradictory version with regard to the manner of incident, we are of the view that Panna Lal (P.W.-3), Raja Ram (P.W.-4) and Geetam Singh, never saw the occurrence as they were not present at the date, time and place where the occurrence took place and projected themselves as eye witnesses.
32. Moreover, Panna Lal (P.W.-3) has not offered any plausible reason to go to Fatehabad, from where he was returning to his home on 17.09.2013 while his brother Raja Ram (P.W.-4) has specifically stated in his examination-in-chief that he alongwith his brother Panna Lal (P.W.-3) and Geetam Singh, were returning from Om Nagar Sofipur Road from the in-laws house of Panna Lal's daughter. However, Raja Ram (P.W.-4) has stated that they were gone there with regard to some settlement. If this witness had really gone to the in-laws house of the daughter of Panna Lal (P.W.3), this fact should have been specifically stated by Panna Lal, itself, because she was his daughter where Raja Ram has claimed to go for settlement. One other surprising fact also appears that all the three witnesses, namely, Panna Lal (P.W.-3), Raja Ram (P.W.-4) and Geetam, are residents of Village Datauji, P.S. Linepar, while the daughter of Panna Lal is said to be resident of Sofipur but all three had gone there by foot, which appears not reliable in ordinary course of nature, therefore, the story developed by this witness (P.W.3-Panna Lal) does not inspire any confidence.
33. Since the story narrated by the eye witnesses looses its veracity, hence the entire story of prosecution becomes doubtful and such a doubtful version of prosecution can not be said to be sufficient to hold the accused guilty.
34. However, learned A.G.A argued that the prosecution has succeeded to establish his case on the basis of circumstantial evidence as the Dataram (informant and P.W.-1) and Shalini (P.W.-2) the daughter of deceased had seen the accused taking the deceased with them and after a short period of time deceased was found dead.
35. Though, we are of the view that the testimonies of these two witnesses (P.W.-1 and P.W.-2) regarding taking the deceased by the accused with them are not reliable, but even if the stand of the learned A.G.A is considered to be true, even then the chain of circumstance is incomplete, In a case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116, the Apex Court evolved five golden principles have been enunciated which are reproduced hereinafter:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and 'must be or should be proved' as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. V. State of Maharashtra, where the following observations were made:
"Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions."
(2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say. they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty,
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and
(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
154. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence."
36. When we analyse the evidence on record on the above touchstone, we have no hesitation in arriving at the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the complete chain of circumstances, particularly when the story set up by prosecution of direct evidence has collapsed, in such circumstances, it may be unsafe to base conviction solely on the strength of evidence of witnesses who claim to be a witnesses of last seen only. In absence of any other fact/circumstance such as recovery etc. proven, and in absence of strong motive proven, the chain of circumstances may not be seen as complete.
37. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts, hence the appellant deserves to be acquitted from the charges levelled against him, as a benefit of doubt.
38. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court vide order dated 01.11.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Firozabad, in Session Trial No. 726 of 2013 (State Vs. Baboo Ram & others), arsing out of Case Crime No. 364 of 2013, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station - Linepar, District - Firozabad is set aside. The appellant is acquitted from the charges levelled against him. The appellant is in jail. He be released forthwith, in case, he is not required in any other case. The appellant is directed to furnish bail bonds in compliance of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. to the satisfaction of the Court concerned within one month from today.
39. Copy of this judgment along with original record of Court below be transmitted to the Court concerned for necessary compliance. Compliance report be submitted to this Court at the earliest. Office is directed to keep the compliance report on record.
Order Date :- July 29th, 2025
Prajapati RK
(Madan Pal Singh,J.)
I agree.
(Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.)
