-
by Admin
28 January 2026 4:28 AM
"Last Seen With Uncle, Found Dead Next Day – Circumstantial Chain Complete in Child Murder Case", In a judgment Allahabad High Court upheld the conviction of Sagheer Ahmad for the brutal murder of a 10-year-old boy, his own nephew, committed in 1981. A Division Bench comprising Justice Rajnish Kumar and Justice Zafeer Ahmad affirmed the life sentence under Section 302 IPC and four years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 201 IPC, observing that the entire chain of circumstantial evidence stood firmly established, leaving no scope for reasonable doubt.
The case of Sagheer Ahmad v. State of Uttar Pradesh [Criminal Appeal No. 674 of 1984] is a chilling reminder of how a trusted relative betrayed that trust to commit a heinous act, and how the law, despite absence of direct evidence, can convict on the strength of reliable circumstantial links – especially when read through the lens of the ‘last seen’ doctrine.
“Chain of Circumstances is Complete and Points Only to the Accused” – Court Applies Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Test
At the heart of the judgment lies a rigorous application of the five golden principles of circumstantial evidence laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622. The Court observed:
“The prosecution has been able to prove the chain linking guilt of the appellant... All the circumstances are consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and exclude every other possibility.” [Para 31]
The child, Rehan @ Bablu, was last seen on the evening of 14th April 1981, being taken away on a cycle by the accused, who was his maternal uncle. His dead body was discovered next morning near a canal in a different district (Sultanpur), bearing marks of manual strangulation. The motive, as established, was a monetary dispute with the child’s mother, to whom the accused had advanced money.
The defence's arguments regarding lack of motive, absence of recovery, and no test identification parade were all rejected in light of compelling medical evidence, reliable child witness testimony, and independent corroboration.
“Evidence of a Child Witness Can Be Reliable If Found Natural and Corroborated” – Court Relies on 7-Year-Old’s Testimony
A key witness was the deceased’s younger brother Salman, aged around 5 years at the time of the incident, who testified two years later as PW-5, aged 7. His deposition was accepted after trial court conducted due inquiry and recorded that the child was competent to testify:
“He properly replied the answers as recorded by learned trial court... and stated that his uncle Sagheer took Bablu on a cycle during Maghrib time to show him an exhibition.” [Para 13]
The Court, while acknowledging the caution required in appreciating child witness testimony, held:
“Once the evidence of a child witness is in conformity with the evidence of an independent witness, there remains no ground to discard his evidence.”
This approach aligns with Digambar Vaishnav v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2019) 4 SCC 522, wherein the Supreme Court stressed that while child witnesses are susceptible to tutoring, their testimony is not to be rejected solely due to age, if found consistent and reliable.
“Independent Neighbours, No Enmity, No Affinity – Their Testimony is Neutral and Believable”
The prosecution established that the accused was last seen with the deceased at multiple points, with three independent witnesses corroborating the child’s testimony:
PW-2 Salim, a tailor near the boy’s house, saw the accused taking Bablu on a cycle;
PW-7 Jamil Ahmad, a local resident, saw them at Charbagh Railway Station around 6:30 PM;
PW-8 Moti Lal, a shopkeeper in Warisganj, Sultanpur, saw the accused with Bablu near his house at around 11:00 PM, when the accused asked for directions to a nearby village.
Crucially, the Court found these witnesses to be neutral and without motive to falsely implicate, stating:
“PW-8 neither knew the deceased or the appellant from before nor could have any enmity with them... His statement is consistent.” [Para 19]
Even absence of test identification parade was dismissed as immaterial, given that the witnesses already knew the accused.
“Medical Evidence Clinches Cause and Timeline of Death” – Strangulation Proved, Timeline Matches Circumstances
The post-mortem report, conducted on 16.04.1981 by Dr. C.K. Gupta (PW-9), showed:
Abrasions on the left side of neck;
A contusion on the right side below the jaw;
Fracture of the hyoid bone;
Congestion of larynx and trachea;
Death due to asphyxia from neck compression, consistent with manual strangulation.
The medical opinion matched the prosecution’s timeline and reinforced the circumstantial narrative. The Court held:
“The doctor opined that the deceased had died on account of pressing of the neck... caused by finger tips. The prosecution case is supported by the evidence of doctor and post-mortem.” [Para 26]
“Absence of Weapon Recovery Not Fatal When Chain Is Otherwise Complete”
The defence had argued that no weapon or confessional disclosure was recovered at the instance of the appellant. But the Court reiterated settled law that non-recovery of weapon is not fatal when other evidence conclusively proves guilt. Relying on Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 259, the Court noted:
“Even otherwise, mere non-recovery cannot be a ground to disbelieve the prosecution, if otherwise it is proved.” [Para 31]
“Motive Is Present, But Even Absence Would Not Undermine a Strong Circumstantial Case”
The accused had himself stated under Section 313 CrPC that he had given a loan of ₹5,000 to the deceased’s mother, which had not been repaid. The Court observed that this admission not only corroborates his presence at the house, but also establishes motive.
Even assuming the motive was weak, the Court clarified, citing Shatrughan v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2023) 20 SCC 63, that:
“In cases based on circumstantial evidence, absence of motive assumes a different complexion but does not automatically negate prosecution’s case if other links are proved.”
Conviction Upheld, Appellant Directed to Surrender
Affirming the findings of the Trial Court (Judgment dated 25.08.1984), the High Court ruled:
“There is no illegality or error in the findings recorded by the trial court... the judgment is upheld and punishment confirmed.” [Para 33]
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was directed to surrender within two weeks, failing which the Chief Judicial Magistrate shall initiate arrest proceedings.
Date of Decision: 22 January 2026
