Delay in Naming Accused, Contradictory Testimonies, and Unreliable Medical Records Render Prosecution Case Untrustworthy: Allahabad High Court

Suspicion Cannot Take the Place of Legal Proof: Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) acquitted a man who had spent over 15 years in custody for a murder he was accused of committing as a teenager. In the case of Pankaj v. State of U.P., Criminal Appeal No. 1820 of 2015, the Division Bench comprising Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Harvir Singh found the prosecution story riddled with inconsistencies, unexplained delays, and unsupported claims. Setting aside the conviction under Section 302 IPC and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act, the Court held that the entire case against the appellant was marred by serious evidentiary flaws and investigative failures.

The incident dates back to November 24, 2009, when Parul, a 17-year-old girl, was fatally stabbed outside her home in Meerut while feeding bread to stray dogs. Initially, a First Information Report was lodged by her uncle Jaiveer Singh against unknown persons under Section 307 IPC, which was later converted into a case under Section 302 IPC after her death.

The names of the accused—Pankaj and Babloo (his maternal uncle’s son)—surfaced only two days later, allegedly based on statements made by the victim’s mother, Parvita, and a relative, Satveer Singh. The trial court had convicted Pankaj and sentenced him to life imprisonment. Babloo passed away during the pendency of the appeal.

The Allahabad High Court critically examined the timeline and credibility of the prosecution witnesses. It highlighted that the FIR initially named no accused, and the identification of Pankaj and Babloo came only after a two-day delay, which remained unexplained. “The unexplained delay of two days in naming the accused casts a serious shadow on the credibility of the prosecution’s case,” the Court observed.

Parvita, the mother of the deceased, claimed she witnessed the stabbing but also stated she fainted at the spot and was unconscious for two days. She said she was admitted at the nursing home of Dr. Rakesh Mittal in Budhana. However, the Court was unconvinced by this narrative. “The medical records presented are self-serving documents that lack essential corroborative details such as admission logs or witness verification,” the Court said.

Furthermore, the Court found her testimony internally inconsistent. “A witness who allegedly witnessed her daughter being stabbed did not raise any alarm, did not assist, and allegedly fainted without any head injury—such a version is highly unnatural and doubtful,” the judges noted.

Satveer Singh, the purported eyewitness who claimed to have seen the incident while buying bidi from a nearby shop, also failed to provide a coherent account. “His testimony was riddled with contradictions. He claimed to see the incident in electric light but later admitted there was no electricity at the time. This significantly undermines his credibility,” the Court remarked.

The High Court was also unimpressed by the recovery of knives allegedly used in the murder, found near a sugarcane field at the instance of the accused. “There is no forensic evidence linking the recovered weapons to the crime. Neither was blood found on the knives, nor were they sent for forensic examination. Recovery, unsupported by scientific evidence, is meaningless,” the Court stated.

The Court criticized the investigation, noting that several key facts revealed during the trial were never disclosed to the investigating officers. “The prosecution’s version has seen multiple improvements and interpolations, none of which were part of the original investigation record. This creates a strong inference of fabrication and afterthought,” it observed.

In regard to the trial court’s reliance on the prosecution witnesses, the Bench was scathing: “The learned trial court failed to scrutinize the prosecution's evidence with the caution and rigor required in a case of murder. The testimonies of P.W.1 (Jaiveer), P.W.2 (Satveer), and P.W.3 (Parvita) are inconsistent, unreliable, and riddled with omissions and improvements.”

Acquitting the appellant Pankaj, the High Court held that there was no cogent or reliable evidence against him to sustain a conviction under any of the charges. “Suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of proof,” the Court reiterated, adding that “the prosecution has utterly failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.”

“The entire prosecution case is based on belated and uncorroborated statements, which fail to inspire judicial confidence,” the Court concluded.

Directing the immediate release of the appellant, the Court ordered, “The conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all charges and shall be released forthwith unless required in any other case.”

This judgment marks a poignant reminder of the critical importance of due process and the grave consequences of investigative lapses. The Allahabad High Court has powerfully reaffirmed that in criminal law, the burden lies squarely on the prosecution to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. With this acquittal, the Court has not only upheld the rule of law but also issued a stern warning against convictions based on flawed evidence, delayed accusations, and judicial shortcuts.

Date of Decision: May 22, 2025