Allahabad High Court
MEERA DEVIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The appellate court held that the trial court's acquittal was not perverse, nor based on misreading or omission of material evidence, and therefore could not be disturbed.
Summary
Meera Devi filed a criminal appeal under Section 413 of the BNSS Act challenging the acquittal of two accused (Pushpa Devi and Arun alias Kallu) by the Additional Sessions Judge, Etawah, in a murder case arising from the death of her husband, Anil Kumar. The prosecution alleged that the accused murdered the husband to deny him a share in land and house, relying on circumstantial evidence and a post‑mortem indicating strangulation. The trial court found the motive unproven, noted inconsistencies in the informant’s statements, and held that the chain of circumstantial evidence was incomplete, thereby acquitting the accused. On appeal, the High Court examined the standards for interfering with an acquittal, citing Supreme Court precedents that such interference is permissible only when the lower court’s judgment is perverse, based on misreading of material evidence, or when no reasonable alternative view exists. Finding no patent perversity or misapprehension, the Court upheld the trial court’s acquittal and dismissed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the trial court erred in acquitting the accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence and alleged motive.
- Whether the prosecution established a complete chain of circumstantial evidence, including motive, beyond reasonable doubt.
- Whether the appellate court may interfere with an order of acquittal under Section 413 BNSS.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 161, 313, 413
- Indian Penal Code — s. 201, 302, 306, 34
Subjects
- murder
- IPC 302
- circumstantial evidence
- acquittal
- appeal against acquittal
- motive
- Section 413 BNSS
- High Court
- Allahabad
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL U/S 413 BNSS No. - 481 of 2026
Meera Devi
…..Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and 2 others
…..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Sanjay Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 46
HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J.
HON'BLE DR. AJAY KUMAR-II, J.
(Dictated by Hon’ble Dr. Ajay Kumar-II. J.)
1. Heard Mr. Sanjay Mishra, the learned counsel for appellant and
the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-I.
2. Challenge in this criminal appeal is to the judgment dated
29.05.2026 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Etawah
in Sessions Trial No. 78 of 2019 (State of U.P. vs. Pushpa Devi and
another) arising out of Case Crime No. 256 of 2013, under Sections
302/34 and 201 IPC, Police Station Bharthana, District Etawah,
whereby accused-opposite parties-1 and 2 have been acquitted of the
charges framed against them.
3. Brief facts of the case are that informant Meera Devi gave a
written complaint (Ex.Ka-1) at Bharthana Police Station stating therein
that her father-in-law Bhanwar Singh, mother-in-law Pushpa Devi and
brother-in-laws Ajay alias Chhote and Arun alias Kallu did not want to
give her husband any share in the land and house. Therefore, her
husband has been living in Delhi for several years, earning his
livelihood through private employment. Her husband came to the
parental home from Delhi by stating that he shall claim his share in the
land. On that evening, when she called her husband, his phone was
switched off. On the next day, when she returned home from Delhi, the
2
NC413 No. - 481 of 2026
house was locked. Seeing the lock, she went to her maternal home,
Khitoura. Thereafter, she and her brother searched for the missing
husband, but he could not be traced out. Then her brother went to his
own house. On 01.07.2013 at 7:30 pm, she received a call from her
maternal mother-in-law (mausiya saas), informing her that Anil had
hanged himself and a foul smell was emanating from the house. When
she reached the door of her house, she saw blood in the courtyard and
veranda and a foul smell was emanating from it. Upon breaking the
lock, she found her husband’s body hanging inside the room. Seeing
the dead body of her husband, she fainted. The written complaint
further records that her husband has ended his life after being fed up of
all of this.
4. On the basis of aforesaid Written Report/Tehrir (Ex.Ka-1) given
by informant, an FIR dated 02.07.2013 (Ex.Ka-2) was registered as
Case Crime No. 256 of 2013, under Section 306 IPC at 00:35 am at
Police Station Bharthana, District Etawha against accused namely,
Bhanwar Singh, Pushpa Devi, Ajay alias Chote and Arun alias Kallu.
The Check FIR (Ex.Ka-2) and General Diary (GD) entry (Ex.Ka-3) were
prepared and numbered as G.D. Entry No.4 at 00:35 am dated
02.07.2013.
5. Dr. Gyanendra Kumar (Autopsy Surgeon) PW-6 conducted post
mortem (Ex.Ka-10) of the body of deceased Anil Kumar alias Mullan on
02.07.2013. The post mortem examination of deceased Anil Kumar
alias Mullan commenced at 03:10 pm and was completed at 03:50 pm.
The following ante-mortem injuries were found on the body of
deceased:
Antemortem Injuries:
1. A 4 x 3 cm lacerated wound on the chin.
2. The nasal bone was broken.
3. A semi-circular blue contusion measuring 8 x 2.5 cm below the chin
on the neck, which was found to contain blood clots upon examination.
4. A 30 x 15 cm ligature mark, located 3 cm below injury number 3,
which was found to contain blood clots underneath underneath upon
examination. A knot mark was present in the hair on the back of the
neck.
3
NC413 No. - 481 of 2026
Internal Examination:
Head, scalp, and brain membranes of deceased were
congested. Nasal bone was fractured. Larynx and vocal cords were
mildly congested. Left groin of hyoid bone was fractured. Both lungs
were congested and soft. Heart was empty. Stomach contained
approximately 100 grams of watery food. Small intestine contained
digested food and gases. Large intestine contained fecal matter and
gases. Liver, spleen, and both kidneys were congested and soft.
Time of death may have been approximately two and a half days ago.
In his opinion, cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation.
6. Sub-Inspector Rampal Singh PW-5, who was posted at Police
Station Bharthana, was appointed as the Investigating Officer. He
accordingly, took over investigation, conducted inquest procedure,
recorded the statements of informant and other witnesses, visited the
spot, prepared site plan of the place from where dead body of
deceased was recovered, collected post mortem report, inquest report
and other papers and converted the case under Section 302 IPC from
Section 306 IPC. Thereafter, investigation was transferred to Inspector
Yogendra Pal Sharma PW-7. PW-7 recovered a double sim Micromax
mobile with charger from the room of deceased and prepared its
recovery memo (Ex.Ka-11). Finally Inspector Anil Kumar PW-8 after
completion of investigation, submitted charge sheet against all named
accused, i.e. Bhanwar Singh, Pushpa Devi, Ajay @ Chote and Arun
alias Kallu, under Sections 302/34 and 201 IPC. Thereafter,
cognizance was taken upon same on and case was committed to the
Court of Sessions.
7. Accused Bhanwar Singh (father-in-law of informant) and Ajay
alias Chhote (brother-in-law of informant) died during trial, therefore,
proceedings against them were abated on 05.03.2019 and 06.01.2018
respectively. Upon appearance of accused Pushpa Devi and Arun alias
Kallu before trial Court, charges under Sections 302/34 and 201 IPC
were framed against them on 24.04.2019, to which these accused
pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4
NC413 No. - 481 of 2026
8. In order to prove it's case, prosecution adduced PW-1 Meera
Devi (first informant/wife of deceased/independent witness), PW-2
Brijraj Singh, (father of the informant/independent witness), PW-3
Constable Amritlal Pal (scribe of FIR), PW-4 Smt. Malla Devi (mother of
informant/independent witness), PW-5 Sub-Inspector Rampal Singh
(First Investigating Officer) PW-6 Dr. Gyanendra Kumar (Autopsy
Surgeon), PW-7 Yogendra Pal Sharma (2nd Investigating Officer),
PW-8 Inspector Yogendra Sharma (Final Investigating Officer), PW-9
Sub-Inspector Pramod Kumar Yadav (Secondary witness of 3 rd I. O.).
The witnesses adduced by the prosecution gave their respective oral
evidence and also proved 12 prosecution papers, which were marked
as exhibits. Same are tabulated herein below:-
Sl. No. Name Nature of Evidence Documents proved
PW-1 Meera Devi First informant/ wife of Written Report/Tehrir
deceased/Independent (Ex.Ka-1)
witness
PW-2 Brijraj Singh Father of informant/ -
Independent witness
PW-3 Constable Formal witness, who G.D. Entry as Ex.Ka-3
Amritlal Pal prepared Check FIR and
and made G.D. Entry. Check FIR as Ex.Ka-2
PW-4 Malla Devi Mother of informant/ -
Independent witness
PW-5 Sub-Inspector Ist Investigating Site Plan as Ex.Ka-4,
Rampal Singh Officer/ Formal witness Inquest Report as
Ex.Ka-5, Photo Nash
as Ex.Ka-6, Challan
Nash as Ex.Ka-7, Letter
to R.I. as Ex.Ka-8 and
Letter to C.M,O. As
Ex.Ka.9.
PW-6 Dr. Gyanedra Doctor, who conducted Post mortem report as
Kumar post mortem of Ex.Ka-10
(Autopsy Surgeon) deceased
PW-7 Inspector Formal witness/ -
Yogendra Sharma 2nd Investigating Officer
PW-8 Inspector Formal witness/ -
Anil Kumar Final Investigating
Officer
PW-9 Sub-Inspector Formal witness/ -
Pramod Kumar Secondary witness of
Yadav 3rd Investigating Officer
5
NC413 No. - 481 of 2026
9. After prosecution evidence was over, all the
adverse/incriminating circumstances relied upon by the prosecution
were disclosed to accused–opposite parties 1 and 2, in question
answer form for their version of occurrence as per mandate of Section
313 Cr.P.C. Accused denied all the suggestions put to them one by one
by repeatedly saying that it is false or they have been falsely implicated
in the present case or the prosecution case is false or the depositions
of prosecution witnesses are false.
10. By the impugned judgment dated 29.05.2026, Court below
acquitted accused-opposite parties-1 and 2 of the charges under
Sections 302/34 and 201 IPC.
11. Thus, feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, present appeal
has been preferred by informant-appellant.
12. Mr. Sanjay Mishra, the learned counsel for appellant-informant
submits that impugned judgment is manifestly illegal and erroneous
and, therefore, liable to be set aside by this Court.
13. It has been argued by learned counsel for appellant that
prosecution has successfully proved the charges levelled against
accused-opposite parties-1 and 2. Learned counsel for appellant
further submitted that Court below has misread the evidence and
further failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence
available on record in it’s correct perspective. Prosecution has
successfully proved motive behind the commission of murder. All the
links in the chain of circumstantial evidence are present and have also
been proved by the prosecution, which clearly points at the guilt of
accused opposite-parties-1 and 2. The prosecution has proved its case
beyond reasonable doubt, but Court below has wrongly recorded a
finding of acquittal in favour of opposite parties 1 and 2. As such, the
impugned judgment is liable to be set-aside by this Court and the
appeal be allowed.
14. Learned A.G.A. for State-opposite parties 1 and 2 on the other
hand has vehemently opposed the present appeal. According to
6
NC413 No. - 481 of 2026
learned A.G.A., Court below has rightly concluded that their
depositions of prosecution witnesses and has rightly found their
depositions are unreliable. Even no motive could be proved against
accused for committing the crime in question. Not a single link in the
chain of circumstantial evidence has also been proved by the
prosecution. He submits that the impugned judgment passed by Court
below does not suffer from any illegality of law or fact, so as to warrant
interference by this Court. Court below has duly examined the
prosecution case in the light of evidence on record threadbare, without
leaving any aspect of the matter untouched. Lastly, it was urged that no
ground to interfere with the impugned judgment is made out. Learned
A.G.A. thus urged for dismissal of present appeal.
15. We have heard the learned counsel for appellant, the learned
A.G.A. for State-opposite party and also carefully perused the record in
the light of above arguments.
16. Admittedly, present appeal is directed against a judgment of
acquittal. While considering the scope of interference in an appeal
against acquittal, it has been held by Supreme Court that if two views
are possible, one supporting the acquittal and other indicating
conviction, the High Court in such a situation, should not reverse the
order of acquittal recorded by Court below. Reference in this regard be
made to the judgment of Supreme Court in Chandrappa and Ors. vs.
State of Karnataka, 2007 (4) SCC 415: AIR 2007 SCC (SUPP) 111.
17. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal the Supreme
Court in Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar Vs. State of Karnataka,
2024 SCC OnLine SC 561, has observed as under:-
"39. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an
appellate Court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial
Court in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners of
the following principles:-
(a) That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity;
(b) That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material
evidence on record;
(c) That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent
with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on
record.
7
NC413 No. - 481 of 2026
40. The appellate Court, in order to interfere with the judgment of acquittal
would have to record pertinent findings on the above factors if it is inclined to
reverse the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court."
18. It has also been observed in above-mentioned judgment that an
appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal,
there is double presumption in favour of an accused. Firstly, the
presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental
principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed
to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law.
Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of
his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the
trial Court. It has also been observed that the appellate court can
interfere with an order of acquittal only when it comes to a conclusion
that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the
evidence on record is that the guilt of accused stands proved beyond
reasonable doubt and no other conclusion is possible.
19. Supreme Court in the case of Gamini Bala Koteswara Rao vs.
State of Andhra Pradesh, (2009) 10 SCC 636, observed that
interference in an appeal against acquittal should be rare and in
exceptional circumstance. It was further held that it is open to the High
Court to reappraise the evidence and conclusions arrived at by the trial
Court. However, it is limited to those cases where the judgment of the
trial court is perverse. Apex Court further went on to declare that the
word "perverse", as understood in law, has been understood to mean,
"against the weight of evidence". If there are two views and the trial
court has taken one of the views merely because another view is
plausible, the appellate court will not be justified in interfering with the
verdict of acquittal.
20. Upon evaluation of impugned judgment, we find that Court below
while acquitting the accused, has recorded the following
reasons/findings:-
i. The Autopsy Surgeon PW-6 has opined that cause of death of
deceased is asphyxia on account of strangulation. Therefore, death of
deceased is murder.
8
NC413 No. - 481 of 2026
ii. There is no eye-witness of the incident, therefore, present case rest
squarely on circumstantial evidence.
iii. Informant Meera Devi PW-1 in her deposition has stated that
accused were not giving any share to deceased in the house and land
and for this motive they have murdered her husband.
iv. Reluctancy of accused in giving any share in the house and land to
deceased is said to be the motive behind murder of deceased.
v. PW-1 in her cross-examination at page-4 has fairly conceded that
her father-in-law are three brothers, namely Dalal Singh, Indu Singh,
Bhanwar Singh. Bhanwar Singh has died and other two are alive.
Their land holdings had already been divided before her marriage. Her
husband Anil Kumar was the eldest son of Bhanwar Singh. Accused
Ajay Kumar has died. On page-6, she stated that her father-in-law
owned 10 bighas of agricultural land. On page-7, she admitted that her
in-laws gave her two and half bigha agricultural land. Her father-in-
law’s large house has already been partitioned, and all members are
residing in their respective share. She has a separate pucca (well
built) house in her in-laws house. Her in-laws house has three different
sections, in one section her mother-in-law, father-in-law and Arun use
to reside, in second section Ajay and his wife reside and in third
section, she and her husband resided. Her in-laws house was not
partitioned before, but after marriage of her brother-in-law, partition
took place nearly ten years ago.
vi. Brijraj Singh (father of informant) DW-2 in his deposition has also
fairly conceded that four years before the incident, his daughter and
son-in-law were separated, they were given four bighas of agricultural
land to cultivate. His daughter’s father-in-law owned three houses and
there were separate arrangement for the all families regarding living
and dining.
vii. Malla Devi (mother of informant) PW-4 has also fairly stated that
her daughter was separated by her in-laws and she was given four
bighas of agricultural land to cultivate, which she rented to this
witness’s maternal nephew Awdhesh for Rs. 6000/-.
viii. From the deposition of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4, it is clear that
informant PW-1 owned a separate home at her in-laws house, where
she used to live with her husband and children. Moreover, informant’s
husband (deceased) was given four bighas of agricultural land to
cultivate nearly four years before the incident, which informant herself
rented out to others. Therefore, alleged motive behind the crime that
informant’s husband was murdered for denial of share in land and
house, is not proved by the prosecution.
ix. A perusal of site plan (Ex.Ka-4) reveals that informant’s house is
separately situated with a vacant land in front and a tin-shed. To the
south of informant’s home is Bhanwar Singh’s house. In this site plan,
no door is shown for going into Bhanwar Singh’s house. However, in
9
NC413 No. - 481 of 2026
the site plan prepared by Inspector Anil Kumar PW-8 on 01.09.2013, a
door is shown on the south side of informant’s house. The statement
of Anil Kumar recorded in case diary reveals that although there was a
door, but a cooler was placed in front of it. Even if it is presumed that
there was a door in informant’s house leading to Bhanwar Singh’s
house, it would not be possible for accused to enter informant’s house,
if the door was locked from inside or a cooler was placed in front of it.
x. A narration of call details by the Investigating Officer in his
deposition merely reveals that deceased was present in Etawah on
29.06.2013. However, there is no evidence on record that there was
any conversation between accused and husband of informant or that
accused were in the company of informant’s husband.
xi. It is clear from the deposition of PW-1 that when she arrived at her
home after receiving information from Mausiya Saas (mother-in-law),
then she broke the lock on gate by using a hammer, which she had
picked up from a nearby place and thereafter saw her husband
hanging from a latch (kundi) inside the room. Neither broken lock nor
hammer was recovered by the Investigating Officer, which were very
crucial piece of evidence.
xii. Malla Devi (mother of informant) PW-4 in her deposition has stated
that when she heard news of death of her son-in-law, her daughter
Meera Devi (PW-1) was in Delhi and she gave her this information on
01.07.2013 at 07:30 pm. However, as per call details, location of
informant was found at Etawah on 30.06.2013 at 8:30 am. Therefore,
there is sharp contradiction.
xiii. Informant PW-1 has shown ignorance regarding mobile number
827310XXXX, whereas in her statement recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C., she admitted talking on this number. PW.-1 further stated that
she does not know the names of users of mobile numbers
8510XXXXXX and 9911XXXXXX. Therefore, it is clear that informant
does not know the mobile numbers on which she had spoken to her
husband.
xiv. As far as recovery of mobile phone and charger of deceased is
concerned, PW-1 herself in her cross-examination has stated that a
member of family of her in-laws had gone to give mobile phone and
charger of her husband to police. Therefore, even this recovery is not
credible.
xv. It has come on record that Bhanwar Singh also lodged Case Crime
No. 256-A/13 against informant and other, regarding this incident, in
which, Final Report was submitted by police.
xvi. PW-2 and PW-4 have stated that they suspect that deceased has
been murdered by accused. From their depositions, it is clear that
none of them was present on spot at the time of incident. In such a
situation, suspicion howsoever it may be strong, can not take replace
evidence available on record and a person can not be convicted
10
NC413 No. - 481 of 2026
merely on suspicion without there being any sufficient supporting
evidence.
xvii. Prosecution has failed to prove alleged motive. No one has seen
accused committing the crime. Admittedly, informant’s house is
separate from the house of accused. Call details do not indicate that
accused were present on spot. Informant’s main door was locked from
outside, which was broken by informant herself, however, the same
(broken lock) was not taken into possession. The key of this lock was
also not recovered on the pointing out of accused. In such a
circumstance, it is not clear that accused had access to the crime
scene. Mamta, mausiya saas (mother-in-law) has not been examined,
who gave information of hanging of deceased to informant, which
could have thrown light that from where she got this information. As
the case is based on circumstantial evidence, none of the links of
alleged crime are connected in such a way that accused can be held
guilty of murder of deceased.
21. After recording above findings, Court below deduced that
prosecution has failed to prove the charges framed against accused.
22. The above conclusion drawn by Court below on the basis of
reasons i.e. prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of accused
beyond reasonable doubt also cannot be said to be illegal or perverse.
The findings/reasons returned by Court below are based upon due
evaluation of allegations made in the complaint in the light of evidence
on record. Court below has assigned specific reasons for coming to the
conclusion that no offence under any of charging Sections is made out
against accused. However, out of abundant caution and further to find
out whether as per the depositions of prosecution witnesses, the
necessary ingredients of the charging sections are borne out/ satisfied
or not, we have carefully perused the depositions of PW-1, PW-2,
PW-4 as transcripted and analysed in the impugned judgment.
23. Undisputedly, present case rests on circumstantial evidence. The
law with regard to evaluation of a case based on circumstantial
evidence stands crystallized in the judgment of Apex Court in Sharad
Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116.
Paragraphs 153 to 154 of the report are relevant for the controversy in
hand. Accordingly the same are reproduced herein below:-
"153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following
conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to
be fully established:
11
NC413 No. - 481 of 2026
(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 v. State of Maharashtra where the
following observations were made: (SCC para 19, p. 807)
19. 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."
24. It is also equally settled principle of law that suspicion howsoever
strong cannot take the place of a proof beyond reasonable doubt. Apex
Court in the case of Upala Biksamarth alias Biksamimha Vs. State of
Andhra Pradesh, 2019 SAR (Criminal) 7552 found that possibility of
accused’s involvement in the incident raises a suspicion, but suspicion
cannot take the place of “proof”.
25. Apex Court while relying upon the ratio laid down in Nandu Singh
Versus State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhatisgarh) (2022) 19 SCC
301 has summed up the legal position regarding motive in a case
based on circumstantial evidence. In Md. Bani Alam Mazid @ Dhan
Versus State of Assam 2025 INSC 260, Criminal Appeal No. 1649 of
2011, Court observed that motive assumes great significance in a case
based on circumstantial evidence. It is not as if motive alone becomes
the crucial link in the case to be established by the prosecution and
that in its absence, the case of the prosecution has to be discarded.
But, at the same time, complete absence of motive assumes a different
complexion and such absence definitely weighs in favour of the
accused.
12
NC413 No. - 481 of 2026
26. Thus, it can be summed up that if a case is based solely upon
circumstantial evidence, then motive is a very important link in the
chain of circumstances, which could prove the guilt of accused.
Thereof, absence of motive will be a factor that weighs in favour of
accused. Just as strong motive does not by itself result in conviction,
similarly an acquittal can not be recorded on the sole ground of
absence of motive. When the eyewitnesses are not convincing, a
strong motive cannot by itself result in conviction, likewise when the
circumstances are very convincing and provide an unbroken chain
leading only to the conclusion regarding guilt of accused and not to any
other hypothesis the total absence of a motive will not be of any
consequence.
27. In the case in hand, there is neither an eye-witness of the incident
nor any witness regarding factum of last seen. Two alleged
incriminating facts, which were relied upon by the prosecution during
the course of trial and also before this Court are – firstly, there was a
strong motive behind the murder and secondly deceased was found
hanging inside a room of his house, which was adjoining to the house
of accused and they had access to this room.
28. The depositions of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4 as transcripted in the
impugned judgment, are crystal clear that partition of Bhanwar Singh’s
large house had already taken place about 10 years ago before the
incident and after the marriage of brother-in-law of informant. The
house of in-laws of informant was partitioned in three different sections.
In first section, Bhanwar Singh and his wife and brother-in-law of
informant, i.e., Arun were residing, in second section, Ajay, brother-in-
law of informant with his wife were residing and in the third and last
section, informant herself with her husband resided. Thus, in-laws
house was already partitioned and share of informant and her husband
was specific and separate. Informant and her husband were in
possession of aforesaid portion of the house. Moreover, it has come in
evidence of informant PW-1 that she got two and half bighas of
agricultural land for cultivation, whereas her father PW-2 and mother
PW-4 both have consistently stated that informant was given four
13
NC413 No. - 481 of 2026
bighas of agricultural land to cultivate. In the light of aforesaid clear
admissions in their depositions, the alleged motive falls flat.
Prosecution has failed to prove the alleged motive. No other motive
has been alleged against accused by the prosecution.
29. Second incriminating fact of this case is that accused were having
access to the house of deceased as they were living in the vicinity of
informant’s house. It has clearly come in the deposition of PW-1 herself
that when she arrived at the spot, she found that main door was locked
from outside and therefore, she picked a hammer from nearby and
then with the help of this hammer, she broke the lock. The aforesaid
broken lock as well as hammer both were very crucital piece of
evidence, however none of these items was recovered by the
Investigating Officer.
30. A perusal of site plan (Ex.Ka-4) reveals that there is no door in the
informant’s house by which, one can go in Bhanwar Singh’s house.
However, in the site plan prepared by PW-8 also an Investigating
Officer, a door is shown on the southern side of informant’s house.
However PW-8 in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
stated that a cooler was placed in front of it. In these circumstances,
when the main door is locked from outside and there is no evidence
that door outside where a cooler was placed, was locked from inside or
not, it cannot be presumed that accused had access to informant’s
house. Even if for the sake of arguments, it is presumed that accused
had access to informant’s house, then it merely raises a suspicion that
accused might have committed this murder. But there is no other
evidence connecting accused to this crime. Nothing has been
recovered on the pointing out of accused. There is no last seen
evidence against accused either. There is no evidence that anyone had
either seen accused-opposite parties roaming around informant’s
house or going and coming out of her house at any time or before or
after the alleged incident. Prosecution has miserably failed to prove the
alleged motive also. Therefore, there is not a single link what to talk of
complete chain of circumstantial evidence, connecting accused-
opposite parties to the present crime.
14
NC413 No. - 481 of 2026
31. Law is well settled that suspicion cannot take place of proof. A
person cannot be convicted merely on the basis of suspicion,
howsoever strong it may be. Therefore, we are of the considered
opinion that prosecution has failed to prove the charges levelled
against the accused-opposite parties-2 and 3, beyond reasonable
doubt and Court below has rightly acquitted accused-opposite parties-2
and 3 by giving them the benefit of doubt.
32. Apex Court in the case of Bhaskarrao and others Vs. State of
Maharashtra, (2018) 6 SCC 591, has observed in paragraph Nos. 15
and 23 as under:-
15. In Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat, 1996 CriLJ 2867, this Court
observed:
"This Court has repeatedly laid down that the mere fact that a view other
than the one taken by the trial Court can be legitimately arrived at by the
appellate Court on reappraisal of the evidence cannot constitute a valid and
sufficient ground to interfere with an order of acquittal unless it comes to the
conclusion that the entire approach of the trial Court in dealing with the
evidence was patently illegal or the conclusions arrived at by it were wholly
untenable. While sitting in judgment over an acquittal the appellate Court is
first required to seek an answer to the question whether the findings of the
trial Court are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably
unsustainable. If the appellate court answers the above question in the
negative the order of acquittal is not to be disturbed."
"23. Before we proceed to analysis of the case, we must first focus on the
aspect concerning the standard the High Court has to apply, while hearing a
case against an acquittal order of the trial court. In the case on hand, the trial
court, followed by a full fledged trial, comes to the conclusion and by cogent
reasoning acquits the accused. In such a case the appellate Court is further
burdened with the task of reaffirming the innocence of the accused. In such
cases, the appellate Court is expected to be very cautious and its
interference with the order of acquittal is called for only when there are
compelling reasons and substantial grounds. In other words, the High Court
has full power to review the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is
founded, yet the presumption of innocence of the accused being further
reinforced by his acquittal by the trial Court, the findings of that Court which
had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing their evidence can
be reversed only for very substantial and compelling reasons (refer Surajpal
Singh & Ors. v. The State, 1952 Cri LJ 331)".
33. At the time of hearing of present appeal, we had repeatedly
confronted the learned counsel for appellant with the findings recorded
by trial Court as reproduced in paragraph-20 of this judgment as well
as anomalies noted by us regarding failure of prosecution to prove
alleged motive. However, the learned counsel for appellant could not
overcome the same but made a futile attempt to explain the said
anomalies.
15
NC413 No. - 481 of 2026
34. In view of the discussion made above, we do not find any
perversity in the impugned judgment so as to interfere with the findings
returned by the trial Court. The conclusion drawn by Court below is the
logical outcome of due appreciation of evidence on record. No
misreading or omission could be pointed out by the learned counsel for
appellant. However, being the last Court of fact, we have ourselves
evaluated the evidence on record to find out whether there is any
perversity in the impugned judgment or Court below has misconstrued
any material evidence. However, we could not gather any such fact
from the record so as to infer that conclusion drawn by Court below is
against the weight of evidence on record. It thus, cannot be said that
only the view consistent with the guilt of accused is possible as per the
evidence on record. We, therefore, do not find any good ground to
entertain the present appeal filed under Section 413 BNSS, which
consequently fails and is, accordingly dismissed.
(Dr. Ajay Kumar-II,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.)
September 21, 2026
Monika
Digitally signed by :-
MONIKA KESARWANI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…