Arun @Deepak vs State Of U.P

2026 INSC 1150
Reportable


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
EXTRAORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.4859 of 2026


ARUN @ DEEPAK
…. PETITIONER
Versus
STATE OF U.P.
…. RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
This is a classic case of how an investigation should not be
proceeded with, resulting in the prosecution putting into
jeopardy a person’s life and liberty. The petitioner in the above
case was before us seeking bail after six years of custody as an
undertrial. The crime was one registered as FIR No.367 of 2019 at
P.S. Achhnera, District Agra under Section 364 read with 302 and
1
201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 . By order dated 23.03.2026, this
Court taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is
languishing in jail since 14.11.2019 in a case hinging entirely on
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
VISHAL ANAND
Date: 2026.10.26
14:09:35 IST
Reason:

1
For brevity, ‘the IPC’
Page 1 of 11
SLP (Crl.) No.4859 of 2026

circumstantial evidence, directed the Trial Court to complete the
trial within three months from that date.
2. Pursuant to the same, the trial was concluded and we were
informed that the petitioner was acquitted. Even at the initial
stage, when we looked through the records, it was disclosed that
the case was one of kidnapping and murder and the petitioner
was never named in the FIR or even in the Section 161 statement.
Based on a CCTV footage in which the petitioner was seen and
the confession of a co-accused, he was arrayed as an accused.
The recovery is said to have been made jointly by the two
accused, which also was of charred bones; not identified as that
of the missing person. Neither was the postmortem conclusive as
to how the death was caused. Hence, we called for the judgment
leading to acquittal.
3. The judgment was in Hindi, and it ran to more than 100
pages and the same had to be translated. On perusal of the
translated copy, we were appalled at the manner in which the
investigation was carried out. Merely six witnesses were
examined by the prosecution; the informant, the Doctor, a Head
Constable, a Sub-Inspector and a Circle Officer (the Investigating
Officer) and an independent witness.
Page 2 of 11
SLP (Crl.) No.4859 of 2026

4. The informant, PW1 is said to have reported the missing of
his son who had proceeded home from his workplace at Kiraoli
Tehsil on 18.10.2019 at 3.30 PM. He is said to have been travelling
in his motorcycle bearing No. UP 80 DH 7692. A further report was
made on 19.10.2019, which spoke of an information that the
missing person was actually abducted by unknown persons from
the gate of Tehsil Kiraoli. The I.O is said to have then arrested two
accused, one of whom was the petitioner. Recovery is said to have
been carried out, and the investigation was completed and
charge-sheet was filed before the jurisdictional court which took
cognizance on 22.01.2020.

5. According to PW1, he gave two reports before the Police,
one immediately on the missing of his son and then, the second
report on coming to know of CCTV footage from the cameras
installed in Kiraoli Tehsil. The Police, on obtaining the footage,
arrested the two accused, the petitioner and one Lalit Kishore,
who were seen travelling in the motorcycle. It was PW1’s
deposition that on 13.11.2019, the two accused along with the
mother of Lalit Kishore, one Shalini came to his house and made a
ransom demand of Rs.50 lakhs, threatening that if the amounts
were not paid; his son, who was in their custody would be killed.
Page 3 of 11
SLP (Crl.) No.4859 of 2026

The woman is also said to have shown an Aadhaar Card and the
State Bank of India passbook of his son. Even according to him, he
never reported this ransom demand coupled with the threat to the
police and by evening on the same day, the police arrested the
two accused and he was called to Police Station Achhnera on the
night of 13.11.2019, where he saw the two accused arrested by
the police.
6. According to PW1, along with the accused the police took
him to one Radha Rani flats in front of which there was a drain, and
the motorcycle of his son was found in the bushes. A bundle tied
with a green and maroon blanket was found near the drain, in
which a skull, a half-burnt thigh bone, ribs and small bones of the
legs were found. Then they were led to Lalit Kishore’s house from
where; a plastic can and the Aadhaar Card and the State Bank of
India passbook of the deceased were recovered along with a
black colour bag of Lalit Kishore. Then the two accused took them
behind the house, where the bag, shoes, laptop, charger, registry
papers, plain papers and stamp papers belonging to the son of
PW1 were found. The recoveries were not from the petitioner
herein and were recorded as carried out from the house of the co-
accused.
Page 4 of 11
SLP (Crl.) No.4859 of 2026

7. PW2 was the Doctor, a Senior Radiologist at the District
Women Hospital, Agra, who examined the bones recovered. The
bones were eight in number, some of which were broken and
some ante-mortem injuries were detected on the skull. The time
and cause of death could not be ascertained and though the same
was sent to FSL for DNA examination, nothing is seen produced
as to the identification of the bones, as that of the deceased.
8. PW3, the Head Constable merely spoke of the registration
of the missing report and the second report regarding the CCTV
footage. PW4, Sub-Inspector carried out reconnaissance of the
scene of recovery. He went to the spot and carried out the inquest
along with five witnesses, none of whom were examined before
Court. He had obtained the CCTV footage from Tehsil Kiraoli and
made photos of the same from which the petitioner was identified.
The CDR report of certain mobile numbers were obtained and an
inquiry was made but there was no attempt to identify the persons
in whose name the SIM cards were subscribed nor were the CDR
supported with a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence
Act.
9. PW5 was the Circle Officer, who was the Inspector-in-
Charge of the police station, who spoke of how the crime was
Page 5 of 11
SLP (Crl.) No.4859 of 2026

carried out, but without any substantiation of the same.
Obviously, according to PW5, the accused had administered
sleeping pills to the deceased, and his mouth was taped shut,
upon which he suffocated and died. We find no medical evidence
substantiating the same. The accused then purchased 55 litres of
petrol in two cans from the petrol pump on 20.10.2019 and burnt
the dead body, wrapped up the remaining bones and disposed it
off near the drain in front of Radha Rani flats. The scene at which
the alleged burning of the corpse was not identified, for a forensic
examination to be conducted. No attempt was made to identify
the petrol pump and bring in evidence, substantiating the
purchase of petrol, that too in two empty cans. The cans were also
not chemically examined to find out whether they had petrol in
them. PW6, knew the deceased but it fails comprehension as to
why he was examined because he did not speak of the crime or
the persons allegedly involved in it.
10. Admittedly, Lalit Kishor died and Shalini, his mother; the
third accused, was absconding and the petitioner alone faced
trial. The trial court in its elaborate judgment has acquitted the
accused, finding none of the four circumstances projected by the
prosecution to be proved. The four circumstances as projected
Page 6 of 11
SLP (Crl.) No.4859 of 2026

by the prosecution were: (i) the ransom demand made by the
accused to PW1, termed as an extra judicial confession, (ii) the
confession of the two accused arrested on the basis of CCTV
footage (iii) the last seen theory, of the two accused being seen
with the deceased and (iv) the electronic evidence collected.
11. The ransom demand as found by the trial court itself was
never reported to the police and it was a statement made for the
first time in Court. In any event, it cannot be considered to be an
extra judicial confession. More importantly, PW1 spoke of an
enmity harboured by Shalini against him for implicating her son
in a criminal case, which was never spoken of by PW1 to the
police when he made two statements. The accused were not
arrested on PW1’s pointing out and he only identified them at the
Police Station after arrest as the persons who accompanied the
lady who made the ransom demand. The ransom demand was
never reported to the police, and the Court is kept in the dark as
to how the three persons were identified as the accused and
arrested, especially, when the CCTV footage from Kiraoli Tehsil
was not proved.
12. The confession of the accused obviously cannot be relied
on; especially when it is made to the police. There was no last
Page 7 of 11
SLP (Crl.) No.4859 of 2026

seen theory proved effectively before court. The court
categorically found that the CCTV footage was not clear and it was
difficult to identify the persons travelling in the motorbike. As far
as electronic evidence, it comprised the CCTV footage and the
CDR; both not proved with supporting certificate under Section
65B of the Evidence Act.
13. In this context, we cannot but notice that even the
motorcycle recovered from the spot, from where the bones were
recovered, was not produced in trial, confronted to the witnesses
or its ownership proved. The result of the FSL examination of the
bones was neither disclosed in trial nor was any attempt made to
take the DNA sample of the father of the deceased, PW1, to match
it, with that of the bones. Particularly, PW-2, Doctor, gave
evidence that such an examination was necessary to determine
the identity of the person whose bones were recovered along
with cause and time of the death. The CCTV footage was not
supported by a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act.
PW4, the Sub-Inspector did not testify of the accused persons
having been identified by PW1, the complainant; either from the
CCTV footage nor as the persons who had approached him on the
same day. The recoveries made were not proved to have been
Page 8 of 11
SLP (Crl.) No.4859 of 2026

concealed by the two accused and no statement is seen recorded
from the accused regarding the concealment before the same is
recovered. PW1’s evidence itself is that the police had led himself
and the accused to the spot from which they recovered the
various items belonging to the deceased, and also from the house
of one of the accused; who died during trial. We emphasize this
aspect since neither was a statement regarding concealment
recorded from the accused, under Section 27 of the Evidence Act,
nor was it deposed by the witnesses or the I.O that it was the
accused who led them to the place from which seizures were
made.

14. It is unfortunate that despite no evidence against the
petitioner herein, he was imprisoned for six years as an
undertrial. Based on a slipshod investigation, a haphazard
prosecution was carried out, which resulted, fortunately in the
acquittal of the accused. We cannot but deprecate the manner in
which the investigation was carried out and the prosecution
conducted. As we noticed at the initial stage, we were only
concerned with a bail application in which the direction was
issued to complete the trial which resulted in the acquittal of the
sole accused, who faced trial. We spent our valuable time going
Page 9 of 11
SLP (Crl.) No.4859 of 2026

through the judgment only to caution the State as to the manner in
which investigations are carried out. The State Police would do
well to educate their officers in the process of investigation. A
copy of this order will be sent to the Director General of Police
and Home Secretary of the State of Uttar Pradesh.
15. Be that as it may, six years have been erased from the life of
a man on the strength of a concocted story built on mere surmises
and conjectures. Not even a rudimentary investigation was
carried out. The investigating agency also took no steps to
expedite the trial, at least against the present petitioner, even if
one accused was absconding, especially when the other had
expired. The State cannot shirk from its responsibility to protect
its citizens, especially when a person arraigned in a criminal case
is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The investigation and
prosecuting agencies exist not merely to, and by whatever means
bring in a conviction. They should recognize themselves to be
essential stakeholders in the justice delivery system, ensuring
justice, not only to the victim, the de facto complainant and the
injured but also to the accused. We come across such travesty of
justice in many matters, but in some, so blatant and shocking, as
Page 10 of 11
SLP (Crl.) No.4859 of 2026

in this case, which requires reparation to the accused, who in turn
is a victim of the system.
16. We, hence, direct the State to pay an amount of
Rs.6,00,000/-; though paltry in comparison to the years spent in
custody, within a period of one month to the petitioner herein. If
the amount is not so paid within the time stipulated, it shall carry
interest @18% per annum.
17. The Special Leave Petition stands disposed of and pending
application(s), if any shall stand rejected.


.……………………………... J.
(J. B. PARDIWALA)



..………….…………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)

NEW DELHI;
OCTOBER 26, 2026.
Page 11 of 11
SLP (Crl.) No.4859 of 2026