Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder

“Even a Young Army Captain Cannot Be Dragged By a 65-Year-Old Cancer Patient Without Resistance” – In a latest judgement Supreme Court of India upheld the acquittal of three accused in the sensational murder of Captain Praveen Kumar, rejecting the complainant's plea for reinstatement of their conviction. The Court, after reappreciating the evidence, held that the version of events presented by the prosecution was not only inconsistent but lacked basic credibility, especially considering the profile of the deceased – a young, trained Indian Army officer.

“It is not possible to believe that a serving captain in the Indian Army, who was a young man, could be dragged up a staircase by three men including a 65-year-old cancer patient,” observed the Bench comprising Justices K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria, while dismissing the appeal against the Allahabad High Court’s 2012 judgment of acquittal.

“Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence” – Supreme Court on Implausibility of Prosecution’s Version

The incident dates back to 1996, when Captain Praveen Kumar, posted in the Indian Army, was allegedly murdered due to a family property dispute. The complainant Raj Pal Singh—Praveen's father—accused his brother Dharam Pal, nephew Rajveer, and one Sudhir of executing a premeditated killing using firearms and a hockey stick.

However, the Supreme Court found the evidence shaky. The alleged sequence of three men dragging Praveen from a parking area up a staircase of 20 steps lacked medical and physical plausibility, especially given the deceased's physical fitness.

“Dragging by three men – one being elderly and seriously ill – of a fit, trained soldier up multiple stairs is not just improbable; it is implausible,” noted the Court, citing that even the complainant could not confirm if his son’s clothes were torn in the alleged scuffle.

“Presumption of Innocence is Reinforced on Acquittal” – SC Refuses to Interfere Without Compelling Grounds

Affirming the Allahabad High Court's acquittal, the Supreme Court underscored that once an accused is acquitted by a trial or appellate court, the presumption of innocence becomes doubly fortified. The High Court had reversed the trial court's conviction based on contradictions in witness testimony, absence of corroborative evidence, and logical gaps in the prosecution's narrative.

Quoting from Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, the Bench reiterated that:

“Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict. The mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions”.

The Court emphasized that unless the trial court’s findings are perverse or completely unsupported by evidence, an appellate court must tread cautiously before interfering with an acquittal.

High Court’s Evaluation Deemed “Plausible and Reasonable” – SC Cites Chandrappa Precedent

In rejecting the appeal, the Supreme Court relied heavily on the principles laid down in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, holding that if two views are reasonably possible, the one favoring the accused must prevail.

“The view taken by the High Court does not appear to this Court to be in any way unreasonable or one which would warrant substitution,” the bench held, underlining that the High Court had rightly considered discrepancies in the FIR, delay in recording the complaint, and lack of forensic corroboration of the weapon allegedly used in the murder.

The Court was particularly critical of the fact that although the alleged murder weapon—a licensed gun—was recovered, there was no ballistic report produced to establish its use in the killing.

“Judicial Discipline Demands Restraint in Reversing Acquittals” – SC Explains Scope of Review

The Court reiterated well-settled jurisprudence that appellate courts must exercise restraint in overturning acquittals unless there are “substantial and compelling reasons.” It noted that:

“The appellate court must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is a double presumption in favour of the accused. If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court” – quoting Chandrappa.

Acquittal Upheld, Appeal Dismissed

In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The inconsistencies in witness statements, delay in filing detailed complaints, uncorroborated claims of weapon use, and lack of motive or physical possibility rendered the story “unworthy of belief.”

“Although the emotional pain of the complainant is understandable, criminal convictions must be based on solid evidence—not on suspicion or assumptions,” the Court remarked.

The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the High Court acquitting the accused was upheld in full.

Date of Decision: 16 December 2025