Reiterating that criminal convictions must rest on reliable evidence and not on rumours or suspicion, the Allahabad High Court has acquitted four men who had been sentenced to life imprisonment for a 1998 murder in Agra. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt and found that the trial court had relied on hearsay evidence and unverified village rumours while recording the conviction.
Background of the Case
The appeals arose from the conviction of Bhanwar Singh, Beniram, Om Prakash and Kaptan Singh in the murder of Sukhpal alias Munna, who was found dead on the night of 14/15 October 1998 in Agra district.
Initially, the FIR named three different persons as the accused. During the investigation, the local police filed a charge sheet against those named in the FIR. However, following complaints by villagers seeking a fair investigation, the matter was transferred to the CBCID.
After reinvestigation, the CBCID discarded the earlier charge sheet and instead filed charges against the present appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The trial court later convicted all four accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment on 13 January 2020, while acquitting them of the Arms Act charge. Challenging that judgment, the convicts approached the High Court.
Take CourtBook Everywhere
Access your account on the go with our mobile app.
Court's Observations
A Division Bench comprising Justices J.J. Munir and Vinai Kumar Dwivedi closely examined the prosecution evidence and found significant inconsistencies.
The Court observed that the prosecution itself had projected two contradictory versions of the case. While the FIR blamed one set of accused, the CBCID investigation implicated another. Several prosecution witnesses continued to support the original FIR version, whereas others merely expressed suspicion against the appellants based on alleged motives.
The Bench noted that none of the witnesses had actually seen the murder. Many admitted during cross-examination that their statements were based only on what they had heard from others or on rumours circulating in the village.
"The prosecution itself is not clear as to against which set of accused persons it is adducing evidence,"
the Bench observed while analysing the conflicting testimonies.
Hearsay and Rumours Cannot Sustain Conviction
The High Court found that the prosecution's theory against the appellants largely rested on allegations that the deceased had illicit relationships, giving rise to a possible motive. However, the witnesses themselves admitted that they had never personally seen any such relationship and were only repeating village rumours.
The Bench held that hearsay evidence, suspicion and rumours cannot legally substitute proof in a criminal trial.
Quoting the Supreme Court's decision in Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam, the Court observed:
"Suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof."
The Court said the trial judge had misread the evidence and wrongly convicted the appellants solely on doubtful circumstances instead of reliable proof.
Sniffer Dog Evidence Also Rejected
The Bench also rejected reliance on statements claiming that police sniffer dogs had reached the houses of the appellants.
It pointed out that the prosecution had produced no official report regarding the dog's tracking, nor examined the dog handler before the trial court. Without documentary support or proper evidence, such claims could not be treated as incriminating material.
Referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in Gade Lakshmi Mangaraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh, the High Court observed that evidence based on tracker dogs suffers from inherent limitations and cannot by itself become the basis of conviction.
Decision
Setting aside the trial court's judgment dated 13 January 2020, the Allahabad High Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.
The Bench concluded that the conviction was founded on hearsay evidence, suspicion and village rumours rather than legally admissible proof.
Allowing both criminal appeals, the Court quashed the conviction and life sentences of Bhanwar Singh, Beniram, Om Prakash and Kaptan Singh under Section 302/34 IPC. As all four appellants were already on bail, the Court cancelled their bail bonds and discharged their sureties.
Case Details:
Case Title: Bhanwar Singh vs State of U.P. (along with Connected Appeal)
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 441 of 2020 (Along with Criminal Appeal No. 392 of 2020)
Judge: Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi
Decision Date: 1 July 2026
