Body Found Burnt Beyond Recognition—No DNA Test, No Direct Evidence, Only Assumptions Not Establish Guilt: Allahabad High Court Upheld Acquittal in Murder Case

Trial Court's Reasoning Is Neither Perverse Nor Implausible—Mere Motive and Call Records Do Not Establish Guilt - Allahabad High Court dismissed the government appeal filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh against the acquittal of Banta Pal and another in a gruesome murder case involving a burnt, unidentifiable body, citing insufficient evidence and procedural lapses. The judgment authored by Justice Siddharth and Justice Praveen Kumar Giri upheld the trial court’s acquittal and reiterated the principle: “Suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof. An accused is presumed innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Body Found Burnt Beyond Recognition—No DNA Test, No Direct Evidence, Only Assumptions Based on Motive and Phone Calls

The case stemmed from an FIR filed on 10 February 2018, reporting the discovery of a burnt body in a field, which was later suspected to be that of Preetam Kumar, the complainant’s brother. Initially registered against unknown persons, the investigation later alleged a murder conspiracy involving Preetam’s wife Sukhdevi, her alleged paramour Banta Pal, and his cousin Raju, based on circumstantial motives and call detail records.

However, the trial court, and later the High Court, found major flaws in the prosecution’s theory: “There was no DNA test conducted to confirm the identity of the deceased. The name written in the post-mortem report was merely taken from the inquest report. The slippers allegedly found near the body were never proven to belong to the deceased.”

The supposed motive—an illicit relationship between Banta and Sukhdevi—was also found to be unproven. As the Court observed: “PW-1 (the complainant) could not substantiate the claim of an affair. The call details only show that calls occurred—not what was spoken. No certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act was produced to support the CDRs.”

“Appeals Against Acquittal Stand on a Different Pedestal—No Interference Unless Findings Are Perversely Unreasonable”
The Court reiterated that appellate courts must be cautious in interfering with acquittal orders. Citing Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat (1996) and Sadhu Saran Singh v. State of U.P. (2016), the Bench emphasized: “Even if another view is possible, it is not a ground to reverse acquittal unless the findings are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable.”

Refusing to re-evaluate evidence simply because the State presented an alternate reading, the Court stated: “The trial court’s judgment is well-reasoned and convincingly explains why the prosecution failed. This Court finds no perversity or illegality in the findings.”

“Reasonable Doubt Must Be Actual and Substantial—Not Speculative”

Invoking classic jurisprudence on ‘reasonable doubt’, the Court cited Ramakant Rai v. Madan Rai, Bhagirath, and Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade, underscoring that doubt must arise from the evidence or lack of it, not from conjecture or emotional surmise.

The Court echoed: “A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary or trivial doubt, but one arising from a fair consideration of all evidence. The dangers of exaggerated devotion to the benefit-of-doubt rule at the expense of justice demand caution.”

No Grounds to Reverse Acquittal—State’s Appeal Dismissed
After examining the material evidence, testimony of witnesses, and trial court reasoning, the High Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The Bench concluded: “The trial court's judgment does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. The leave to appeal is refused, and the government appeal is dismissed accordingly.”

Date of Decision: 10 March 2025