The Allahabad High Court has acquitted Shahrukh (co-accused) and Hasnera @ Shabana (wife of deceased Naeem) in a murder case, holding that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence against them. The Division Bench comprising Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay also cautioned against treating Call Detail Records (CDRs) as conclusive proof that two persons were together at a particular place. The prosecution had alleged that Shahrukh was in a relationship with Hasnera @ Shabana
The appeals challenged the November 14, 2025 judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No. 3, Firozabad, which had convicted both appellants under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment with a fine of ₹30,000 each.
Background
The prosecution case arose from the death of Naeem, whose body was found near a brick kiln in Firozabad on January 1, 2023. The prosecution relied mainly on circumstantial evidence, including an alleged motive, mobile phone records, alleged confessions before the investigating officer, and recovery of a bloodstained brick from the place of occurrence.
The appellants argued that there was no eyewitness, they were not named in the FIR, the alleged motive was not proved, and the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution did not form a complete chain pointing only towards their guilt.
The High Court reiterated that a conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires every important circumstance to be firmly established and the complete chain to be consistent only with the guilt of the accused.
The Bench observed:
"Though conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence alone but for that the prosecution must establish the chain of circumstances, which consistently points to the accused and accused alone and is inconsistent with their innocence. It is further essential for the prosecution to cogently and firmly establish the circumstances from which inference of guilt of accused is to be drawn."
The Court found that the alleged motive was not proved because the witnesses relied upon by the prosecution did not have personal knowledge of the alleged relationship between the accused persons. The Court held that this caused a break in the prosecution's chain of circumstances.
The Bench also rejected reliance on CDRs as exclusive evidence to establish that Shahrukh and the deceased were together at the crime scene.
The Court observed:
"Thus, 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."
The Court further noted that being within the coverage area of the same mobile tower does not necessarily establish that a person was physically present at the place of occurrence.
The High Court concluded that important links in the prosecution's evidence were missing and that the circumstances did not form a complete chain establishing guilt. It therefore held that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of doubt.
The Court set aside the trial court's judgment and order dated November 14, 2025, acquitted Shahrukh and Hasnera @ Shabana of the charges, and directed that they be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
-300x169.webp)
