DRS Chambers

1. Case Details
Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Case Title: Kamal Prasad vs State of U.P.
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 694 of 2016
Bench: Hon’ble Rajnish Kumar, J. & Hon’ble Zafeer Ahmad, J.

Trial Court Judgment:
Conviction by Trial Court: Section 302 IPC (Life Imprisonment + Fine ₹10,000)

2. Facts of the Case

The prosecution case arose from an incident dated 19.04.2012 wherein the accused-appellant allegedly assaulted his wife, Indravati, with an axe inside their house, resulting in her death. The FIR was lodged by the son of the deceased, who stated that upon hearing cries, he rushed to the house and saw the accused fleeing while his mother was found dead inside.
The investigation led to recovery of a blood-stained axe from the place of occurrence, and after completion of investigation, a charge sheet under Section 302 IPC was filed. The trial court convicted the accused for murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The accused denied the allegations, claiming false implication due to enmity and property disputes.

3. Submissions by Counsel for the Appellant

Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the conviction was unsustainable as the prosecution case suffered from material contradictions between the FIR and the testimonies of key witnesses. It was argued that neither of the witnesses had actually seen the assault, making the case purely circumstantial, and the chain of circumstances was incomplete.

It was further submitted that the medical evidence did not fully corroborate the prosecution story, thereby creating doubt. The witnesses were interested and related, and no independent corroboration was available. It was also argued that important links were missing, making false implication a plausible possibility. On these grounds, acquittal on benefit of doubt was sought.

4. Submissions by Counsel for the State

The learned A.G.A. supported the trial court judgment and argued that the prosecution had successfully proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. It was contended that the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 were natural, consistent and trustworthy, and minor discrepancies did not affect the core of the case.
It was further submitted that the ocular evidence was corroborated by medical evidence and recovery of the weapon. The conduct of the accused in fleeing from the spot and failing to explain circumstances under Section 313 Cr.P.C. constituted strong incriminating evidence. The prosecution had established a complete chain of circumstances pointing towards guilt, and hence the appeal deserved dismissal.

5. Order of the Court

The Hon’ble High Court upheld the finding that the accused was responsible for causing the death of the deceased based on a complete chain of circumstantial evidence, including presence at the scene, quarrel, recovery of weapon, and subsequent conduct.
However, the Court observed that the incident occurred in the course of a sudden quarrel without premeditation, and the prosecution failed to establish intention to cause death. Accordingly, the conviction under Section 302 IPC was altered to Section 304 Part II IPC.
Considering that the accused had already undergone more than 15 years of incarceration, exceeding the maximum punishment under Section 304 Part II IPC, the Court held the period already undergone as sufficient sentence. The appeal was partly allowed, and the accused was directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.

6. Case Laws Relied Upon
M.C. Ali vs State of Kerala (2010) 4 SCC 573
State of U.P. vs Anil Singh (1988) 3 SCC 686
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State of Maharashtra
Pundalik vs State of Maharashtra
Surinder Kumar vs UT Chandigarh
Rambir vs State (NCT Delhi)
Kesar Singh vs State of Haryana

Edited by
Adv Swati Sinha
High Court Lucknow

1. Case Details
Ankit Kumar vs State of U.P. through Additional Chief Secretary Health and Family and others.
Coram:Hon'ble Justice Karunesh Singh Pawar

2. Facts of the Case

The petitioner sought compassionate appointment after the death of his adoptive mother, Smt. Sharda Devi, who worked as a Basic Health Worker. The adoption ceremony took place on the eve of Basant Panchami in 1997 when the petitioner was about six years old. The adoption deed was registered on 15.05 2014.

In an earlier writ petition numbered 19158 of 2017, the court dismissed the compassionate claim due to irregular adoption but directed the Inspector General of Stamp and Registration to investigate the delayed registration. The Inspector General upheld the deed's validity in the order dated 04 July 2018.

A Coordinate Bench recalled its earlier order dated 11.3.24 on 21.8.25 and treated the current petition as a fresh cause of action.

3. Submissions by Petitioner's Counsel
The counsel for the petitioner prayed for a writ of mandamus directing Respondent No. 2 to consider the case for appointment under Dying-in-Harness Rules as per the Inspector General's order dated 04 July 2018. It further highlighted compliance with the prior writ judgment dated 18 September 2017.

Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court judgment in Prema Gopal versus Central Adoption Resource Authority and others, Special Leave to Appeal 14886 of 2024 decided on 29.1.2025, for the principle that adoption deeds relate back to the ceremony date.
Further reliance was on the Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment in Union of India and another versus Sukhpreet Kaur and another, upholding Section 16 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act presumption for registered deeds.

4. Submissions by Respondent's Counsel
The learned Standing Counsel for the State opposed the claim. He submitted that the petitioner was a major on the date of registration of the adoption deed, which is 15 May 2014. Therefore, the adoption does not qualify under the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 1956.

5. Order of the Court and Case Laws Relied
The court issued a writ of mandamus directing Respondent No. 2 to consider the petitioner's case for appointment under Dying-in-Harness Rules. The petitioner was instructed to submit a fresh representation within two weeks, and Respondent No. 2 shall decide within a further four weeks in accordance with law. The petition was thus disposed of

The case laws relied on
1. Daryao versus State of Delhi
2. Prema Gopal versus Central Adoption Resource Authority

Edited by
Adv Swati Sinha
High Court Lucknow

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 9 of 2016
Ajay Kumar
Versus
State of U.P.

Delivered on 20.02.2026
Court
HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN
HON'BLE JUSTICE ABDHESH KUMAR CHAUDHARY

Per: Hon'ble Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, J.

Facts of the Case

On 22.04.2011, watchman Omchand Yadav reported discovering two dead bodies in Rakhuna Chiloki forest. A woman later identified as Shubhangi in a 5-foot pit with a gamcha around her neck, and an 8-9 year old girl 50 meters away in a drain with cloth tied around her neck, while scattered clothes and items were found nearby. Post-mortem confirmed death by ante-mortem strangulation for both. FIR under Section 302 IPC was registered against unknown persons, and investigation linked appellant Ajay Kumar via a notary affidavit recovered from the spot allegedly documenting his court marriage with Shubhangi, leading to charges and trial court conviction for life imprisonment plus fine based on circumstantial evidence.

Submissions by Counsel for Appellant

Counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant was not named in the FIR and the conviction relies on an incomplete chain of circumstantial evidence, including no recovery of articles from the appellant's possession, absence of proven motive since the appellant was not a beneficiary of the deaths unlike PW-6 Ganesh, unproven marriage as the notary affidavit was neither produced nor proved by witnesses, and unreliable last-seen witnesses who were interested parties with major contradictions. It was also argued that delayed statements recorded over 75 days post-incident by the Investigating Officer provided inconsistent testimony of witnesses.

Counsel further contended that the incident likely occurred around 21.04.2011 based on post-mortem timing, yet no evidence placed the appellant with the deceased near the crime spot, and the 300 km distance from the victims' home village remained unexplained. These circumstances warranting acquittal under principles of criminal jurisprudence favoring doubt.

Submissions by Counsel for Respondent

Counsel for the respondent, A.G.A., supported the trial court's conviction by asserting that it meticulously analyzed the evidence on record and that the contradictions highlighted by the appellant's counsel were minor human errors without material impact on witness veracity.

It was also stressed that the last-seen evidence reliably established the appellant with the deceased shortly before the murders, properly invoking Section 106 of the Evidence Act due to the appellant's failure to explain the deaths, thereby completing the chain of circumstances proving guilt.

Order of the Court

The Hon'ble Court allowed the appeal, reversed and set aside the trial court's judgment dated 05.10.2015 convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC, and acquitted Ajay Kumar, directing his release .

In detailed analysis, the court found the prosecution failed to establish a complete unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence: discovery of bodies and homicidal strangulation were proved, but the notary affidavit linking marriage vanished without proof or witnesses, rendering the relationship unreliable amid contradictory village testimonies from interested witnesses unaware of basic details like the child's name or appellant's occupation and origin.

Motive was also unproved as PW-6 Ganesh's sole claim of threats lacked prior complaint or police statement and on the contrary benefited Ganesh via inheritance.

Critically, the court laid heavy stress on Section 106 Evidence Act, holding it inapplicable as last-seen theory lacked proximity with a 3-4 day gap before bodies found 300 km away, delayed witness statements over 75 days causing memory fade, and internal contradictions among PW-3, PW-4, PW-5, and PW-6 who provided vague, inconsistent timings and admissions of not seeing them together or omitting details to police.

Relying on Shambhu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer (AIR 1956 SC 404) that Section 106 IEA only applies to facts especially within accused's knowledge after prosecution proves foundational facts, and precedents like Tulshiram Sahadu Suryawanshi v. State of Maharashtra (2012 10 SCC 373), Nagendra Sah v. State of Bihar (2021 10 SCC 725), and Anees v. State NCT of Delhi (2024 15 SCC 48) emphasizing that there is no shift of onus without complete prosecution case.

The court stressed failure to invoke Section 106 validly by State as prosecution hadn't established basic facts for inference, rendering appellant's non-explanation irrelevant under Section 106 IEA.

Case Laws Relied
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra
Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra
Nandu Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh
Shambu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer
Tulshiram Sahadu Suryawanshi v. State of Maharashtra
Nagendra Sah v. State of Bihar
Anees v. State NCT of Delhi

Edited by
Adv Swati Sinha
High Court
Lucknow