# Shiv Sharan & Anr v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 12 ILRA 801
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-12-05
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 8535 of 2022
- **Bench:** Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shiv-sharan-anr-v-state-of-u-p-anr-51355
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Law
-
Appeal
against
conviction and sentence by trial court in a
case based on circumstantial evidence -
Indian
Penal
Code,
1860
-
Section
302/149 , 147, 201 & 364 - Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(2)(v) -
Last seen - Chain of circumstances -
Inconclusiveness
of
evidence
-
Inadequacy of Evidence in Circumstantial
Cases
-
In
cases
relying
solely
on
circumstantial evidence, the prosecution
must
establish
a
complete
chain
of
circumstances leading to the conclusion of
guilt beyond any reasonable doubt -
Merely on the strength of evidence of last
seen the chain of circumstances required
to be proved in a case of circumstantial
evidence,
would
not
be
sufficiently
connected.(Para - 25,27)

Informant's nephew (Ram Niwas) was taken on
17.11.2003 by accused - did not return -
Recovery of clothes and shoes was made on
accused's pointing - no disclosure statement or
recovery memo prepared in presence of
independent persons - Evidence on record not
carefully examined by trial Court nor inherent
flaws in the evidence of PW-1 - noticed an
inadequacacies in the evidence of recovery -
Relevant aspects have not been factored in
while convicting the accused persons - trial
court convicted accused based on circumstantial
evidence. (Paras - 3,4, 8,20,26,31)
802 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
HELD: - Chain of circumstances not sufficiently
connected such that it leads to the hypothesis of
guilt exclusively attributed to the accused
appellants. Chain left incomplete. Alternate
hypothesis consistent with the innocence of
accused
appellants
cannot
be
ruled
out
otherwise. Judgment of conviction and sentence
set
aside.
Appellants
acquitted
due
to
insufficient evidence to sustain the conviction,
shall be released forthwith unless wanted in any
other case. (Para -29,30,32)

Appeals allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

12 All. Shiv Sharan & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
801
be a story which could not be believed at
all. Further, we are of the view that when
the incident had occurred and a full-fledged
investigation had taken place and when no
remnants of the firing were found, then also
we are of the view that something fishy
was there with regard to the prosecution
story.
Also,
relying
upon
the
two
judgments which had been cited by the
learned counsel for the appellants, we are
of the view that if the source of light
namely torches and lanterns were shown to
the police and the investigating agency,
then the non-preparation of the inventories
of the torches and lantern and the fact that
they were not taken into custody, would go
against the prosecution.

32. We, thus, for all the reasons stated
above are of the view that the prosecution
had not been able to prove the charges
beyond reasonable doubt against the
accused persons. The appellants Jageshwar
Singh and Vichitra Singh have already died
and the appeal against them stood abated.
The appeal vis-a-vis Sriman Singh stands
allowed.
The
judgment
and
order
20.12.1983 is set-aside. The appeal is thus
allowed vis-a-vis Sriman Singh.

33. The appellant Sriman Singh, after
non-bailable warrants were issued against
him, is in jail. He be released forthwith if
he is not required in any other case.
----------
(2024) 12 ILRA 801
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.12.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
THE HON'BLE MOHD. AZHAR HUSAIN
IDRISI, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 8535 of 2022
With
Criminal Appeal No. 7952 of 2022

Shiv Sharan & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Ghan
Shyam
Das,
Prakhar
Saran
Srivastava, Rahdey Shyam Yadav, Rajiv
Lochan Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
Dur Vijay Singh, G.A.

(A)
Criminal
Law
-
Appeal
against
conviction and sentence by trial court in a
case based on circumstantial evidence -
Indian
Penal
Code,
1860
-
Section
302/149 , 147, 201 & 364 - Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(2)(v) -
Last seen - Chain of circumstances -
Inconclusiveness
of
evidence
-
Inadequacy of Evidence in Circumstantial
Cases
-
In
cases
relying
solely
on
circumstantial evidence, the prosecution
must
establish
a
complete
chain
of
circumstances leading to the conclusion of
guilt beyond any reasonable doubt -
Merely on the strength of evidence of last
seen the chain of circumstances required
to be proved in a case of circumstantial
evidence,
would
not
be
sufficiently
connected.(Para - 25,27)

Informant's nephew (Ram Niwas) was taken on
17.11.2003 by accused - did not return -
Recovery of clothes and shoes was made on
accused's pointing - no disclosure statement or
recovery memo prepared in presence of
independent persons - Evidence on record not
carefully examined by trial Court nor inherent
flaws in the evidence of PW-1 - noticed an
inadequacacies in the evidence of recovery -
Relevant aspects have not been factored in
while convicting the accused persons - trial
court convicted accused based on circumstantial
evidence. (Paras - 3,4, 8,20,26,31)
802 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
HELD: - Chain of circumstances not sufficiently
connected such that it leads to the hypothesis of
guilt exclusively attributed to the accused
appellants. Chain left incomplete. Alternate
hypothesis consistent with the innocence of
accused
appellants
cannot
be
ruled
out
otherwise. Judgment of conviction and sentence
set
aside.
Appellants
acquitted
due
to
insufficient evidence to sustain the conviction,
shall be released forthwith unless wanted in any
other case. (Para -29,30,32)

Appeals allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. Boby Vs St. of Kerala, 2023 SCC Online SC 50

2. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs St. of Maha.,
(1984) SCC OnLine SC 138

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar
Mishra, J.)

1. Heard Sri Kamal Krishna, learned
Senior counsel assisted by Sri Ghan Shyam
Das, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri
Vikas Goswami, learned A.G.A. for the
State and Sri Dur Vijay Singh, learned
counsel for the informant.

2. These two appeals are directed
against
the
judgment
and
order
of
conviction and sentence dated 11.10.2022
and 28.10.2022, passed by Special Judge
SC/ST Act, IInd Additional District &
Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad in Special
Sessions Trial No.08 of 2005, arising out of
Case Crime No.598 of 2003, Police Station
Mohammadabad,
District
Farrukhabad,
whereby the accused appellants Aneet,
Badam, Roshan, Jarman, Rajendra, Shiv
Sharan and Rishipal have been convicted
and sentenced to life imprisonment under
Section 302/149 IPC read with Section
3(2)(v) SC/ST Act alongwith fine of
Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment to
undergo
two
years
additional
imprisonment; sentenced to five years
rigorous imprisonment under Section 364
IPC alongwith fine of Rs.5,000/- and in
default of payment to undergo one year
additional imprisonment; sentenced to five
years rigorous imprisonment under Section
201 IPC alongwith fine of Rs.5,000/- and in
default of payment to undergo one year
additional imprisonment and a fine of
Rs.5,000/- under Section 147 IPC and in
default of payment to undergo three months
additional imprisonment. All the sentences
are to run concurrently.

3. The first information report in the
present case has been lodged on 23.11.2003
at 06.10 pm on the basis of a written report
made by the informant Ram Charan, who
has been produced as PW-1 during trial.
The allegation in the first information
report is that at 09.00 am on 17.11.2003,
informant's nephew Ram Niwas was taken
by the fellow residents of village, namely
accused Rishipal, Shiv Sharan, Aneet and
Badam to Kutchery (District Court) at
Fatehgarh, whereafter nephew of informant
did not return. Despite the efforts made the
missing nephew could not be traced. On
19.11.2003,
informant's
brother
Ram
Prakash had gone to the house of Harinath
Lodhi in his attempt to trace out his
missing nephew. Harinath Lodhi was not
present at home. So the informant's brother
came to the house of Rajendra Singh,
where accused Rishipal, Shiv Sharan,
Sanjay and Rajeev shot dead informant's
brother Ram Prakash. After this incident
accused Rishipal, Shiv Sharan, Aneet,
Roshan and Badam alongwith Jarman son
of Dafedar Lodhi, confessed to Suresh
Yadav, Rakesh Yadav and Harinath Lodhi
that on 17.11.2003, they have taken Ram
Niwas and has done him to death. Later,
Ram Prakash has also been done to death.
The accused persons further stated that if
12 All. Shiv Sharan & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
803
anybody stood up against them they would
not spare him. With these allegations the
FIR came to be lodged in the present case.
The written report on
the basis of which FIR came to be lodged
has been proved by PW-1.

4. Investigation in the present matter
proceeded and on 19.12.2003, recovery
was made of the clothes and shoes of
missing nephew Ram Niwas on the
pointing out of accused Shiv Sharan and
Rishipal. These two accused also confessed
that they have killed the deceased and his
body has been buried on the river bank by
digging a pit. The recovery memo of the
pant, shirt and the pair of shoes has been
exhibited during trial as Ex.ka.2.

5. It is admitted that neither the dead
body of the deceased has been recovered
nor his whereabouts have been found. The
investigation ultimately concluded with
submission of a charge sheet against the
accused
persons
on
18.1.2004
and
4.3.2004. Cognizance was taken in the
matter
by
the
concerned
Magistrate
whereupon the case was committed to the
Court of Sessions and got registered as
Special Sessions Trial No.08 of 2005. The
charges were framed against the accused
under Sections 147, 364, 302/149, 201
I.P.C. as well as Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST
Act. Charges were read out to the accused,
who
denied
their
implications
and
demanded trial.

6. During the course of trial, the
prosecution has produced the FIR; written
report; recovery memo of pant shirt, shoes
and charge sheet etc. In addition to the
documentary evidence the prosecution has
produced the informant Ram Charan as
PW-1, whereas, Anil has been produced as
PW-2. PW-3 to PW-6 are formal police
witnesses,
who
have
proved
the
prosecution papers and disclosed the
manner in which investigation has been
conducted in the case. PW-6 notably is the
Investigating Officer whose statement shall
be dealt with in the matter, later.

7. The aforesaid evidence led by the
prosecution in the present trial has been
confronted to the accused, who have denied
the prosecution evidence and have stated
that on account of enmity between the
families they have been falsely implicated.
The defence has not produced any evidence
on its behalf. On the basis of above
evidence the trial Court has convicted the
accused appellants and sentenced them, as
per above. Thus aggrieved, these appeals
are preferred by the accused appellants and
are disposed of by this common judgment.

8. The basic facts of the case are
already noticed above according to which
the nephew of the informant was taken to
the Kutchery (District Court) at Fatehgarh
on 17.11.2003 at 09.00 am, whereafter he
has not returned. It is also brought on
record that the brother of the informant
Ram Prakash had gone looking for the
missing nephew Ram Niwas where he too
was done to death by Rishpal, Shiv Sharan,
Sanjay and Rajiv. So far as the murder of
Ram Prakash is concerned, a separate trial
has been conducted in which some of the
accused appellants have been convicted and
their appeals against the judgment of
conviction and sentence is pending before
this Court. The charge framed in the
present trial does not relate to the murder of
Ram Prakash and therefore, this Court is
not required to refer to the evidence in that
regard or make any observations which
may impact the pending appeals relating to
the offence of murder of Ram Prakash. We,
therefore, confine our discussion to the
804 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
charges framed against the accused persons
i.e. in respect of disappearance of Ram
Niwas and his alleged murder.

9. The prosecution case essentially
relies upon the testimony of two witnesses
i.e. PW-1 and PW-2. PW-1 is the informant
while PW-2 Anil is the witness of recovery
of shoes and clothes of the missing boy
Ram Niwas. Testimony of these two
witnesses, therefore, forms the basis of the
prosecution case and before proceeding any
further it would thus be imperative for us to
briefly refer to their testimony.

10. PW-1 in his examination-in-chief
has stated that on 17.11.2003 at 09.00 am,
his nephew Ram Niwas was taken by
accused Rishipal, Shiv Sharan, Aneet and
Badam to Kutchery (District Court) at
Fatehgarh, whereafter, he has not returned.
On 19.11.2003, informant's brother Ram
Prakash, who was a Lekhpal, had gone to
the house of Harinath Lodhi where he was
not
found.
Informant's
brother
Ram
Prakash then came to the house of Dr.
Rajendra where Rishipal, Shiv Sharan,
Sanjay and Rajiv shot him dead. After the
above incident accused Rishipal, Shiv
Sharan, Aneet, Badam, Roshan, Rajendra
and Jarman made a confessional statement
before Suresh Yadav, Rakesh Yadav,
Harinath Lodhi, Amar Singh Lodhi and
Chhotey Pradhan that they have killed Ram
Niwas and his body has been done to death.
Thereafter, Pairokar Ram Prakash has also
been disposed. If anyone comes forward to
depose against the accused they too would
be dealt with in the same fashion.

11.
When
PW-1
enquired
from
accused Rajendra then he was informed
that the accused persons have taken his
nephew Ram Niwas from Bholepur.
Accused
Rajendra
had
helped
other
accused in abducting his nephew. Since
accused were threatening the villagers
therefore, PW-1 suspected the accused of
killing his nephew. PW-1 has also proved
the written report dated 23.11.2003, which
was scribed by Omkar Singh. His statement
was also recorded by the Investigating
Officer.

12. In the cross-examination PW-1 has
admitted
that
the
fact
about
the
disappearance of Ram Niwas came to his
knowledge for the first time on 20.11.2003.
Harinath Lodhi and Chhotey Pradhan were
also present then. They were on cordial
terms with each other. In his further crossexamination PW-1 has stated that his
nephew disappeared on 17.11.2003. The
fact that his nephew disappeared from
Bholepur was told to him by several
persons. Rakesh son of Ganga Singh had
also told him of such fact. This witness,
however, did not remember the name of
other
persons
who
gave
him
such
information. He has stated that because of
the murder of his brother Ram Prakash
there was some delay in lodging the FIR.
Four of the present accused namely,
Rishipal, Shiv Sharan, Rajiv and Sanjeev
are responsible for the murder of Ram
Prakash.

13. The other prosecution witness is
Anil (PW-2), who too has alleged that the
accused persons have killed Ram Niwas.
He has stated that in connection with the
offence police had come to him and
alongwith Shiv Sharan and Rishipal he had
gone to the bushes near the power house
from where two tamancha and three live
cartridges were recovered. These two
accused confessed that they have killed
deceased Ram Niwas and Ram Prakash by
these weapons. Recovery memo in respect
of tamancha and live cartridges were
12 All. Shiv Sharan & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
805
prepared on which signatures of PW-2
were obtained. The recovery memo in
respect of Tamancha and live cartridges
however are not produced during the
present trial.

14. Accused Rishipal and Shiv Sharan
also claimed that they have concealed the
shoes and clothes of the deceased Ram
Niwas and they can show such place. These
persons then led the police to Kali river and
from the place identified by these two
accused, clothes and shoes of deceased
were extracted, which were identified by
PW-2. The dead body of Ram Niwas was
also searched at the place indicated by the
accused
but
it
could
not
be
found/recovered. The recovery memo of
clothes and shoes have been proved by
PW-2. These materials have been exhibited
during trial as Ex.Ka.1 to Ex.Ka.4.

15. In the cross-examination, Anil has
stated that deceased was from his caste and
lived in his village. Their houses were at a
distance of 200 meters. He was not aware
as to when the deceased Ram Niwas had
been done to death. His disclosure made
before Court about the disappearance of
Ram Niwas is based upon the information
furnished to him by the family members of
Ram Niwas. Alongwith him, the police had
called accused Rajendra also. He had
however not seen the accused with
deceased Ram Niwas. This witness has
admitted that the recovery memo of
Tamancha and live cartridges allegedly
recovered on the pointing out of accused
Shiv Sharan and Rishipal are not exhibited
during the trial of the present case.

16. At this juncture, we may also refer
to the statement of the Investigating Officer
(PW-06), who has admitted that parcha
no.1 to 10 in the case diary has not been
scribed by him and it only contains his
signatures. The person who had scribed
these parchas in the case diary has not been
identified.
The
Investigating
Officer
moreover, has admitted that there is neither
any disclosure statement of the accused
persons on record nor recovery memo
prepared in respect of Tamancha and live
cartridges etc. is exhibited. The statement
of Investigating Officer, in that regard, is
reproduced herein below:-

"मुझे मेरी दववेचना के िौरान ऐसा कोई चश्मिीि
साक्षी नही दमला दजसमे इस मुकिमे की घटना होते िेखा हो। मुझे
ऐसा भी कोई साक्ष्य नही दमला दजसने अदभ०गण को तमंचा,
कारतूस मृतक की पेंट शटा व जूते आदि दछपाते हुये िेखा हो।
दववेचना के िौरान अदभयुि द्वारा अपहरण के उपरान्त अपहृत को
कहां कहां ले जाया गया आदि जो बाते अदभयुिगण ने मुझे दिये
गये वयानो मे जो वाते बतायी थी उनको मैने तस्िीक करने का कोई
प्रयास नही दकया दजसकी मे कोई वजह नही वता सकता।"

17. From the evidence of PW-1 it is
abundantly clear that he himself has not
witnessed the disappearance of Ram
Niwas. He has stated in his crossexamination
that
Ram
Niwas
had
disappeared from Bholepur. This fact was
told to him by Rakesh son of Ganga Singh
and other persons but neither Rakesh nor
anyone else, in that regard, has been
produced. In the cross-examination the
witness has primarily alleged that missing
nephew had gone alongwith accused
Rajendra.

18. Though in the examination-inchief it is alleged that accused Rajendra
also helped other accused in disappearance
of Ram Niwas but except for stating so,
neither this witness has specified the place
of disappearance of his nephew nor he is
specific about seeing the missing nephew
leaving with the accused. The testimony of
PW-1, taken in its entirety, remotely
806 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
suggests of evidence in the nature of last
seen against accused.

19. There is however, contradiction in
the version of PW-1, inasmuch as in his
examination-in-chief he is specific in
implicating accused Rishipal, Shiv Sharan,
Aneet and Badam as being the persons who
had taken the missing nephew but in the
cross-examination he has specified accused
Rajendra as being the person, who had
facilitated the disappearance of his nephew.
In the cross-examination, PW-1 is not
specific about the involvement of other
accused persons. The evidence of last seen
is thus not very inspiring.

20. The only other evidence on record
is the recovery of clothes and shoes of the
missing boy Ram Niwas. It is the
prosecution case that accused Shiv Sharan
and Rishipal led the police party alongwith
PW-2 to the place where recovered items
were concealed. What is however relevant
to note here is that there is no disclosure
statement of these two accused on record.
The Investigating Officer has also admitted
that there is no disclosure statement of
accused Shiv Sharan and Rishipal, which
led to the recovery of the clothes and shoes
of the informant's nephew Ram Niwas. The
recovery memo prepared in respect of the
clothes

21. The only witness of the recovery
are police personnel. In the absence of
there being any disclosure statement or the
recovery having been proved by any
independent person, we are not inclined to
attach much importance to the recovery of
clothes and shoes of Ram Niwas.

22. Apart from the testimony of above
two witnesses there is no other evidence led
by the prosecution in this case.

23. Though PW-1 has also stated that
confessional statement was made by the
accused before certain persons but the
person before whom such confessional
statement
are
made
have
not
been
produced. In its absence, the evidence
remains hearsay in nature and thus not
admissible in law.

24. The evidence on record once are
taken in its entirety and carefully analysed
we find that it only suggests that Ram
Niwas has gone missing. His whereabouts
are not ascertained. Neither any specific
evidence has been led by the prosecution to
show that he has been taken anywhere or
whether at all he has been done to death.
The evidence in that regard reveals
inconclusiveness.

25. The only material to implicate the
accused appellants is the statement of PW-1.
His evidence in the nature of last seen is not
inspiring. Reasons for such opinion of the
Court has already been expressed above. The
law is otherwise settled that merely on the
strength of evidence of last seen the chain of
circumstances required to be proved in a case
of circumstantial evidence, would not be
sufficiently connected.

26. The other evidence in the nature of
recovery of clothes and shoes of the
deceased are also not found proved. Such
recovery otherwise fails to meet the
requirement of law, inasmuch as there is no
disclosure statement or recovery memo
prepared in the presence of independent
persons. In coming to such conclusion we
rely upon the judgment of Supreme Court
in Boby Vs. State of Kerala 2023 SCC
Online SC 50.

27. Admittedly this is a case based on
circumstantial evidence. In order to prove
12 All. Shiv Sharan & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
807
such case of circumstantial evidence onus
is upon the prosecution to connect the chain
of circumstances such that it leads to
hypothesis of guilt specifically attributed to
the accused.

28. Five golden principles have been
culled out for the purpose by the Supreme
Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand
Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra (1984) SCC
OnLine SC 138 in para 152 and 153 of the
judgment which are reproduced:-

"152. Before discussing the cases
relied upon by the High Court we would
like to cite a few decisions on the nature,
character and essential proof required in a
criminal case which rests on circumstantial
evidence alone. The most fundamental and
basic decision of this Court is Hanumant v.
State of Madhya Pradesh [(1952) 2 SCC 71
: AIR 1952 SC 343 : 1952 SCR 1091 : 1953
Cri LJ 129] . This case has been uniformly
followed and applied by this Court in a
large number of later decisions up-to-date,
for instance, the cases of Tufail (Alias)
Simmi v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(1969) 3
SCC 198 : 1970 SCC (Cri) 55] and
Ramgopal v. State of Maharashtra [(1972)
4 SCC 625 : AIR 1972 SC 656] . It may be
useful to extract what Mahajan, J. has laid
down in Hanumant case [(1952) 2 SCC 71
: AIR 1952 SC 343 : 1952 SCR 1091 : 1953
Cri LJ 129] :

"It is well to remember that in
cases
where
the
evidence
is
of
a
circumstantial nature, the circumstances
from which the conclusion of guilt is to be
drawn should in the first instance be fully
established, and all the facts so established
should
be
consistent
only
with
the
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.
Again, the circumstances should be of a
conclusive nature and tendency and they
should be such as to exclude every
hypothesis but the one proposed to be
proved. In other words, there must be a
chain of evidence so far complete as not to
leave any reasonable ground for a
conclusion consistent with the innocence of
the accused and it must be such as to show
that within all human probability the act
must have been done by the accused.

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:

(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 [(1973) 2 SCC 793 : 1973
SCC (Cri) 1033 : 1973 Crl LJ 1783] where
the observations were made: [SCC para
19, p. 807: SCC (Cri) p. 1047]

"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
808 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(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."

29. Once we analyse the evidence on
the touchstone laid down by the Supreme
Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (supra)
we find that chain of circumstances is not
sufficiently connected such that it leads to
the
hypothesis
of
guilt
exclusively
attributed to the accused appellants and the
chain is left incomplete.

30. The alternate hypothesis consistent
with the innocence of accused appellants
cannot be ruled out otherwise. In such view
of the matter, the finding of conviction and
consequential sentence of the accused
appellants cannot be sustained.

31. We have also perused the
judgment of trial court and we find that
various arguments advanced on behalf of
accused appellants have not been dealt
with, in correct perspective. Evidence on
record of this case has not been carefully
examined by the trial Court nor the inherent
flaws in the evidence of PW-1 and
inadequacacies in the evidence of recovery
are noticed. Relevant aspects have not been
factored in while convicting the accused
persons. We, therefore, cannot approve of
the conclusions drawn by the trial Court
against the appellants.

32. In that view of the matter, this
appeal succeeds and is allowed. The
judgment of conviction and sentence dated
11.10.2022 and 28.10.2022, passed by
Special Judge SC/ST Act, IInd Additional
District & Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad in
Special Sessions Trial No.08 of 2005,
arising out of Case Crime No.598 of 2003,
Police Station Mohammadabad, District
Farrukhabad is set aside. The accused
appellants shall be released forthwith,
unless they are wanted in any other case,
subject to compliance of Section 437-A
Cr.P.C.
----------
(2024) 12 ILRA 808
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.11.2024
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN
MISHRA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 2136 of 2024

Matloob Husain ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Janardan Yadav

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A.

Criminal
Law-The
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973
-
Section
397
-The
Narcotic
Drugs
and
Psychotropic
Substance Act,1985 - Sections 60 & 63-
Criminal Revision against the impugned order
dismissing the release application filed by the
owner of truck--- There is no report on record
which could suggests that any proceeding for
confiscation of said vehicle under Section 60 of
the Act is pending before the competent
authority, even there is no specific report that
the competent authority has been moved by the
police for confiscation of the vehicle. No useful
purpose of law appears to be served by keeping
the
vehicle
parked
at
police
station
in
unattended position which is bound to cause
deterioration
in
its
value,
utility
and
serviceability--- Learned trial court has not
considered
the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v/s