The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court allowed the criminal appeal and acquitted the surviving appellant in a decades-old murder case, citing serious gaps in the prosecution’s circumstantial evidence. The Court also set aside the forfeiture of a motorcycle allegedly used in the crime.
Background and Facts of the Case
The case originated from an incident on 02 November 1986 in Shahabad, Hardoi. Complainant Pran Nath Shukla alleged that his 17-year-old son, Deepak Kumar, who ran an electrical goods shop, was taken away by Laxmi Kant @ Pappu (son of the shop owner Natthu Lal) on a Rajdoot motorcycle. Deepak did not return. The next day, his body was found near Jamaur culvert in Shahjahanpur with firearm injuries.
The prosecution alleged motive stemming from rumours of an illicit relationship between Deepak and Laxmi Kant’s sister (married in Pali). The case was based primarily on “last seen” evidence, recovery of the motorcycle, and alleged dying declaration through a hostile witness.
The trial court convicted Laxmi Kant @ Pappu and Sunil Kumar under Sections 302/34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment with a fine. Co-accused Natthu Lal and Sri Kant were acquitted. Laxmi Kant died during the pendency of the appeal, leading to abatement for him. The connected appeal challenged the forfeiture of the motorcycle belonging to Puttoo Lal Trivedi (father-in-law of Laxmi Kant).
Key Issues Before the High Court
- Whether the chain of circumstantial evidence, particularly “last seen together,” was complete to sustain conviction.
- Reliability of last seen witnesses, motive (love letters), recovery of motorcycle, and the alleged dying declaration from a hostile witness.
- Propriety of forfeiture of the motorcycle under Section 452 Cr.P.C.
High Court’s Analysis and Ruling
The Division Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajnish Kumar and Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Babita Rani meticulously examined the evidence and found multiple infirmities in the prosecution case:
- Last Seen Evidence: Testimony of PW-1 (Rajni Kant) was found unreliable due to inconsistencies with the complainant’s account, withholding of the material independent witness (Sushil Kumar Singh), and the subordinate relationship between witnesses and the complainant. The Court noted that last seen evidence is a weak type and cannot sustain conviction without a complete chain of circumstances.
- Motive and Love Letters: The recovery and production of alleged love letters were suspicious and not properly proved. The manner of their production in court raised doubts.
- Dying Declaration Claim: The statement of a hostile witness (PW-5) was held not to qualify as a reliable dying declaration.
- Recovery of Dead Body and Other Circumstances: Site plan and other recoveries lacked cogent corroboration. The Court applied the five golden principles from Sharad Birdhichand Sarda and held that the circumstantial evidence did not exclude every other hypothesis of innocence.
The Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It set aside the conviction of Sunil Kumar and acquitted him. The motorcycle forfeiture order was also quashed, directing its release to the owner (who already had custody pursuant to an interim order).
Key Takeaways
- In circumstantial evidence cases, the chain must be complete and unerringly point to the guilt of the accused, leaving no room for any other hypothesis.
- “Last seen” evidence requires strong corroboration and cannot form the sole basis of conviction.
- Long-delayed appeals (here spanning over 37 years) demand careful scrutiny of evidence, especially where witnesses have turned hostile or material witnesses are withheld.
- Courts must exercise discretion judiciously under Section 452 Cr.P.C. for disposal of property used in crime.
This judgment underscores the High Court’s role as the final fact-finder in appeals, emphasizing protection of personal liberty where reasonable doubt persists.
Case Details
Case Name: Laxmi Kant @ Pappu (dead) & Anr. v. State of U.P. (connected with Puttoo Lal Trivedi v. State of U.P.)
Case Numbers: Criminal Appeal No. 206 of 1989 & Criminal Appeal No. 336 of 1989
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajnish Kumar and Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Babita Rani
Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Date of Judgment: 27 May 2026
Click HERE for full Judgment
Lawcutor 