Allahabad High Court Acquits Woman, Alleged Paramour In Husband's Murder Case; Says CDR Can't Alone Prove Accused Was With Deceased
The Allahabad High Court has acquitted a woman and her alleged paramour in a murder case involving her husband, holding that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence connecting them with the crime.
A Bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay set aside the judgment of the trial court, which had convicted Hasnera alias Shabana and Shahrukh for the murder of Hasnera's husband, Naeem, and sentenced both to life imprisonment.
Case in brief
The prosecution case was that Naeem was murdered on January 1, 2023, near a brick kiln in Shikohabad. According to the prosecution's case, his wife Hasnera and Shahrukh, with whom she allegedly had an illicit relationship, had killed him pursuant to a conspiracy.
The case was primarily based on circumstantial evidence as there was no eyewitness to the murder. The prosecution stated that the CDRs go to prove that the deceased was in communication with the appellant Shahrukh and that they were in close proximity to each other on the day of the incident.
It was also claimed that both of the accused were in an illicit relationship and they confessed their guilt before the Investigating Officer.
High Court's observations
The High Court found that the alleged illicit relationship, which formed the basis of the prosecution's motive theory, had not been established through reliable evidence.
The Court noted that the prosecution witnesses who spoke about the alleged relationship did not have personal knowledge of it. It further observed that no complaint regarding such a relationship had ever been lodged.
"No other witness of fact has been produced by the prosecution", the Bench observed while holding that the alleged motive had not been proved.
The High Court also examined the prosecution's reliance on CDRs to establish that the appellant, Shahrukh, was with the deceased at the relevant time. The Bench observed thus:
"…in our view, reliance upon the CDR as a piece of evidence in order to prove the prosecution's case is most dangerous as the same will be used by criminals tomorrow to prove their alibi".
The Court explained that CDRs may show that two persons were operating within the coverage area of the same mobile tower, but that does not establish that they were physically together.
"…this court holds that CDRs are no evidence of the persons being together. It may be corroborative of other eyewitness testimonies, which are unshakable or scientific evidence by way of recovery of articles belonging to a deceased found in the possession of the accused, which the accused is unable to explain. In such situations, the CDR may be considered to clear a cobweb of doubt, but most certainly cannot be used as an exclusive piece of evidence to arrive at a finding that the appellant and the deceased were together on that day", the Court remarked.
The Court added that a person could leave their mobile phone at one place and commit an offence elsewhere. Therefore, mere proximity of mobile phones cannot, by itself, establish the physical presence of their users at the scene.
The Bench also rejected the prosecution's reliance on an alleged confession made by the accused before the Investigating Officer.
Referring to Section 26 of the Evidence Act, the Court noted that a confession made by an accused while in police custody cannot be proved against them unless it is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate.
The alleged confession before the Investigating Officer, therefore, could not be relied upon as evidence against the accused.
The Court further noted that the alleged murder weapon, a bloodstained brick, was recovered from the place of occurrence and not from the possession or pointing out of either appellant. It consequently found that this circumstance also failed to provide a link in the prosecution case.
Against this backdrop, the Bench held that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution neither stood fully established nor formed a complete chain pointing towards the guilt of the accused.
"Many important links are missing so as to form the complete chain of evidence", the Court observed.
The Bench held that it would therefore not be safe to uphold the conviction and that the accused were entitled to the benefit of doubt.
The appeals were accordingly allowed and the trial court's judgment dated November 14, 2025 was set aside. Hasnera and Shahrukh were acquitted of the charges and they were directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
Case title - Shahrukh vs State of UP and connected jail appeal 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 748
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 748