Conviction Can't Rest On 'Last Seen' Alone Without Complete Chain Of Circumstances: Allahabad HC Acquits Man In 1986 Murder Case

A bench of Justice Rajnish Kumar and Justice Babita Rani added that the courts must ensure that the 'circumstantial evidence' and chain of circumstances are complete in a manner that points only to the guilt of the accused, leaving no room for a hypothesis of the accused's innocence.

With these observations, the division bench set aside the 1989 judgment of the Sessions Judge, Hardoi and acquitted the accused by giving him the benefit of doubt.

Case in brief

Briefly put, as per the prosecution's case, on the evening of November 2, 1986, 17-year-old Deepak Kumar, who ran an electrical goods shop in Shahabad, left his home and never returned.

The next day, his father lodged an FIR alleging that rumours had been spreading for the past few days that his son had an illicit relationship with a married woman (the sister of the co-accused). Due to this, the woman's family were harbouring enmity internally, although they apparently maintained cordial relations.

It was further alleged that the woman's brother (Laxmi Kant/original appellant no. 1) took his son on a Rajdoot motorcycle and, thereafter, he and his associates might have killed him or intended to kill him.

On the same day the FIR was lodged, the deceased's bullet-riddled body was discovered by a Home Guard, and later, the informant identified the dead body as that of his son.

Because there were no direct eyewitnesses to the incident, the trial court, while convicting the accused-Laxmi Kant (now dead) and Sunil Kumar (surviving appellant), relied on the witnesses who claimed to have seen the victim riding on a black Rajdoot motorcycle with the accused shortly before his death.

Challenging their conviction, both the accused moved the High Court. During the pendency of the appeal, Laxmi Kant died and the appeal remained pending only qua appellant Sunil Kumar.

The defence argued that the impugned judgment and order had been passed without considering the evidence and material on record appropriately and without making out a complete chain of circumstances against the appellants

The state, on the other hand, argued that the impugned judgment was valid and needed no interference.

High Court's observations

Analysing the trial court's findings, the High Court found glaring inconsistencies in the testimonies of the star witnesses.

It noted that the first witness (PW-1) claimed to have seen the victim with Laxmi Kant, but he had never named the surviving appellant, Sunil Kumar. In fact, PW-2 (the informant/father of the deceased) and PW-3 also did not name the appellant, Sunil Kumar.

Furthermore, the bench noted that an independent friend of the victim (Sushil Kumar Singh), who allegedly saw the deceased with the appellants, was not examined by the prosecution.

Though the aunt of the deceased (PW-4/Krishna Kumari) named the appellant (Sunil Kumar) and deposed to two instances of "last seen", the Court discarded her narrative that the accused and victim repeatedly passed in front of her house on the motorcycle.

"…had the accused was having common intention to kill the deceased, then, we do not think in persepective of any person of ordinary prudence, will repeatedly pass through in front of house of P.W.4, as there was every liklihood of being seen…Therefore, the evidence of P.W.4, as put forth is highly improbable", the bench observed.

Furthermore, the bench noted that PW-5 and PW-6, the prosecution's star witnesses, have turned hostile; therefore, there is no eyewitness account of the crime.

In view of this, the bench noted that with the star witnesses turning hostile, there was no direct eyewitness account of the crime. The entire case rested solely on circumstantial evidence and the 'last seen together' theory.

The Court observed that it is a settled legal principle that circumstances from which an inference of guilt is drawn must be cogently and firmly established. It added that such circumstances should form a complete chain showing that, in all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused only.

"However, if the prosecution fails to show and prove the chain of circumstances and exclude every hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused, the conviction on the basis of 'circumstantial evidence' cannot be made and it will not sustain," the bench noted.

Referring to the Supreme Court judgment in Chetan v. State of Karnataka 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 657, the High Court noted that while a long time-gap doesn't automatically invalidate “last seen” evidence, the prosecution bears the heavy burden of eliminating any reasonable doubt that a third party could have intervened before the commission of the crime.

However, in the present case, the bench observed that the prosecution withheld independent witnesses and presented highly improbable testimony, thereby breaking the chain of circumstances.

Furthermore, on the argument regarding the alleged love affair of the deceased with a married woman as the motive behind his killing, the bench took into account "love letters" presented by the prosecution, purportedly written by the accused's sister.

It, however, found the recovery of these letters highly suspicious and noted that the handwriting could not be conclusively proven. The Bench remarked that while motive is crucial in circumstantial cases, a “rumour can not take the place of proof to record a finding of motive and guilt”.

Against this backdrop, the bench concluded that the Trial Court had recorded the conviction without appropriately considering and appreciating the materials on record, and merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures.

In view of this, the bench ruled that the sole surviving appellant was entitled to the benefit of the doubt and was accordingly acquitted. The trial court's judgment was thus set aside.

The High Court also addressed the issue of the forfeiture of the Rajdoot motorcycle allegedly used in the crime. The trial court had ordered the vehicle forfeited to the State under Section 452 of the CrPC.

The High Court noted that the motorcycle belonged to the deceased accused's father-in-law, a man who was neither an accused nor a witness in the case. Hence, it directed that the seized motorcycle be returned to him.

Counsel for Appellant (s): Nagendra Mohan, Virendra Mohan, Rajiv Kumar Bajpai, Suparna Mishra

Counsel for Respondent(s): Government Advocate, Pawan Kumar Mishra

Case title - Laxmi Kant @ Pappu (dead) and another vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 326

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 326

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment