In a significant reaffirmation of the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence, the Allahabad High Court held that a criminal conviction cannot be sustained merely based on suspicion or possibilities. The Court emphasised that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and where material inconsistencies and evidentiary gaps exist, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.
The decision was delivered in Jag Ram and Another v. State of U.P., arising out of Criminal Appeal No. 639 of 1984. The judgment was pronounced on 12 March 2026 by a Division Bench comprising Justice Siddharth and Justice Garima Prashad.
The appeals challenged the conviction of four accused persons under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which correspond to Sections 103, 109 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, relating to the offences of murder and attempt to murder committed with common intention. After examining the evidence and circumstances of the case, the Court acquitted the surviving appellants, observing that criminal conviction cannot rest on conjectures, suspicion, or doubtful testimony.
Background of the Case
The prosecution case originated from an incident that allegedly occurred on 25 May 1983 in District Agra, Uttar Pradesh. According to the written report lodged by the informant Tej Singh, he along with several persons, including Than Singh, Tikam Singh and others had gone towards the well near the Vankhandi Mahadev temple for bathing in the evening.
During the journey, an altercation occurred between Than Singh and the son-in-law of a person named Nabba alias Nappa. Although the quarrel was reportedly pacified by those present, the prosecution alleged that the dispute led to a later attack.
Around 7:00 p.m., while Than Singh and Tikam Singh were exercising near a hut in the agricultural field of Ganga Singh, four accused persons, Raghuveer Singh, Bharat, Natthi and Jagram, allegedly arrived at the scene. According to the prosecution:
- Raghuveer Singh was armed with a gun.
- Bharat carried a country-made pistol
- Natthi and Jagram had knives
The accused allegedly declared that Than Singh had assaulted the son-in-law of Nappa and therefore deserved punishment. Natthi and Jagram were said to have stabbed Than Singh with knives, while Raghuveer Singh and Bharat allegedly fired shots from their firearms.
When Tikam Singh attempted to intervene, he was also attacked and sustained injuries. On hearing the alarm, several villagers reportedly arrived at the scene, upon which the accused fled.
Than Singh later succumbed to his injuries, while Tikam Singh survived.
Investigation and Trial
Following the incident, a written report was lodged at Police Station Achhnera at around 9:30 p.m. on the same day. On the basis of this complaint, an FIR was registered under Sections 302 and 307 IPC (Sections 103 and 109 of BNS).
The police conducted the investigation, prepared the site plan, recorded witness statements, and subsequently filed a charge sheet against all four accused persons.
The case was committed to the Court of Session since the offences were triable exclusively by a Sessions Court. The trial court framed charges under:
- Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC (murder with common intention)
- Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC (attempt to murder with common intention)
The accused denied all allegations and claimed false implication due to previous enmity.
After trial, the Additional Sessions Judge-X, Agra convicted all four accused in 1984 and sentenced them to:
- Life imprisonment under Section 302/34 IPC
- Ten years rigorous imprisonment under Section 307/34 IPC
The sentences were directed to run concurrently. The accused challenged the conviction before the Allahabad High Court.
Proceedings in the High Court
During the pendency of the appeal, two of the accused, Raghuveer Singh and Jagram, died, resulting in the abatement of the appeals against them.
Consequently, the High Court examined the case only with respect to the surviving appellants:
- Natthi
- Bharat
The Court carefully scrutinised the prosecution evidence to determine whether the involvement of these two accused had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Evidence Presented by the Prosecution
The prosecution examined five witnesses during the trial.
Testimony of PW-1 (Tej Singh)
Tej Singh, the informant, claimed to be an eyewitness. He narrated the alleged attack and stated that Natthi and Jagram stabbed Than Singh while Bharat and Raghuveer Singh fired their weapons.
However, during cross-examination, he admitted that:
- He did not reach the exact spot of the assault.
- He observed the incident from a distance near the temple.
- He reached the scene only after the accused had fled.
This admission raised serious doubts regarding his claim of having witnessed the attack.
Testimony of PW-2 (Tikam Singh)
Tikam Singh, the injured witness, stated that the accused attacked Than Singh with knives and firearms and that he was also assaulted when he tried to intervene.
Although injured witnesses usually enjoy greater credibility, several weaknesses appeared in his testimony:
- He was closely related to both the informant and the deceased.
- He could not clearly identify which accused inflicted which injury.
- He failed to specify the sequence of the knife blows.
These inconsistencies weakened the prosecution’s case.
Medical Evidence
The prosecution produced Dr. Sudhir Chandra, who conducted the post-mortem examination. The post-mortem report revealed:
- Six ante-mortem incised wounds on the body of Than Singh.
- Death caused by shock and haemorrhage resulting from the injuries.
Thus, the Court concluded that Than Singh’s death was clearly homicidal.
However, the doctor who treated the injured witness Tikam Singh was not examined, leaving uncertainty about the nature of his injuries.
Deficiencies in the Prosecution Case
After analysing the evidence, the High Court identified several significant shortcomings in the prosecution’s case.
1. Doubtful Presence of an Eyewitness
PW-1 admitted that he did not reach the place of assault and only saw the incident from a distance. This raised serious doubts about his ability to observe the occurrence and identify the role of each accused.
2. Contradictions Between Witnesses
There were material contradictions between PW-1 and PW-2 regarding:
- the location of witnesses at the time of the incident
- the sequence of events
- the arrival of villagers at the scene
Such inconsistencies weakened the credibility of the prosecution’s narrative.
3. Absence of Corroborative Evidence
The prosecution alleged that Bharat fired a pistol and Raghuveer Singh fired a gun from close range. However:
- No empty cartridge was recovered from the scene.
- No firearm injury was found on either the deceased or the injured witness.
- No firearm was recovered from Bharat.
These omissions significantly undermined the allegation of firing.
4. Lack of Attribution of Injuries
Although Natthi and Jagram were alleged to have stabbed the deceased, the injured witness failed to specify:
- who inflicted the first blow
- how many blows were given by each accused
- which injuries corresponded to which accused
The absence of clear attribution made it unsafe to hold Natthi guilty.
5. Failure to Prove Injuries of the Injured Witness
Although the prosecution claimed that Tikam Singh sustained three incised wounds, the treating doctor was not examined.
As a result, the Court could not determine:
- the seriousness of the injuries
- whether they supported the allegation of attempt to murder.
6. Non-Examination of the Investigating Officer
The Investigating Officer who conducted the investigation was not examined. Instead, a police constable merely proved the investigation documents.
This deprived the defence of the opportunity to cross-examine the officer on crucial issues such as:
- recovery of weapons
- recovery of cartridges
- preparation of the site plan.
7. Lack of Motive
The Court noted that the initial quarrel was between Than Singh and the son-in-law of Nappa. There was no convincing evidence that Natthi or Bharat had any connection with this dispute, nor was any motive established against them.
Legal Principles Applied by the Court
While deciding the case, the High Court relied on established principles of criminal law.
Burden of Proof in Criminal Cases
The Court reiterated that the prosecution must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Any significant gap or inconsistency in the prosecution’s evidence must be resolved in favour of the accused.
Suspicion v. Proof
The Court emphasised the classic principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh (1973), where it was held that:
“The golden thread running through the web of criminal jurisprudence is that if two views are possible, the one favourable to the accused must be adopted.”
Similarly, the Court reiterated that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof.
Scrutiny of Related Witnesses
The Court also referred to State of Rajasthan v. Teja Ram (1999), which held that evidence of related witnesses cannot be rejected solely on the ground of relationship but must be examined with caution. In the present case, the Court found that the testimony of the related witnesses lacked sufficient reliability.
Decision of the Court
After evaluating all the circumstances, the High Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish a reliable chain of evidence connecting the surviving appellants to the crime.
The Court identified several critical deficiencies:
- doubtful presence of eyewitnesses
- contradictions between key witnesses
- absence of corroborative physical evidence
- non-examination of crucial witnesses
- lack of motive against the surviving accused.
Considering these factors cumulatively, the Court held that the prosecution case suffered from serious infirmities and reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, the High Court:
- Set aside the conviction recorded under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which correspond to Sections 103 read with 3(5) and 109 read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
- Acquitted Natthi and Bharat of all charges
- Ordered their immediate release from jail if they were not required in any other case.
Conclusion
The Allahabad High Court’s decision serves as a powerful reminder that the criminal justice system must adhere strictly to the principle that guilt must be proven, not presumed. While the death of Than Singh was clearly established as homicidal, the prosecution failed to convincingly prove the involvement of the surviving accused.
By acquitting the appellants after nearly four decades of litigation, the Court reaffirmed the fundamental safeguard that suspicion cannot replace proof in criminal law. The judgment thus strengthens the constitutional commitment to fairness, due process, and the presumption of innocence.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams