Neerajpal vs State Of U.P.

Reserved on:- 27.04.2026
Delivered on:- 23.07.2026
A.F.R.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.372 of 2018
Neerajpal …..Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. …..Respondents(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Krishna Kumar Singh, Ankit
Kumar Trivedi, Anuj Dayal,
Manisha Trivedi, Mohammad
Salim Khan, Rajat Pratap Singh,
Smriti
Counsel for Respondent(s) : S.P. Singh, A.G.A.
Court No. - 9
HON’BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.
HON’BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J.
(Per: Rajeev Bharti, J)
1. The instant Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been
filed against the Judgment and Order dated 16.11.2017, passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Hardoi
passed in S.T. No.236 of 2012, arising out of Case Crime No.958
of 2011, Police Station- Pihani, District- Hardoi, convicting and
sentencing the appellant to undergo life imprisonment under

-2-
Crl. Appeal No.372 of 2018
Section 302 I.P.C. with a fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of
payment of fine to further undergo one year simple imprisonment.
The appellant was further convicted and sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for ten years with a fine of Rs.5000/- under Section
376 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six
months’ simple imprisonment. The appellant was further convicted
and sentenced to undergo three years with a fine of Rs.3000/- under
Section 201 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine to further
undergo two months’ simple imprisonment. All the sentences were
ordered to run concurrently. However, co-accused, namely, Pappu
@ Chandrapal was acquitted from all the charges by the learned
Trial Court.
Factual matrix of the case
th
2. On 30 October 2011 at about 2:00 P.M., the deceased, a minor girl
aged about 14 years’, daughter of the complainant Amar Pal,
resident of Village Khijir Nagar, Police Station Pihani, District
Hardoi, went to the agricultural field to collect fodder (chara).
When she did not return home till evening, her father – Amar Pal
(P.W.1) along with other villagers, started searching for her.
During the search, Pradeep Kumar (P.W.2) and Manoj Kumar
(P.W.3) informed the informant that they had last seen the deceased
cutting grass in the filed of Ram Kumar where the accused
Neerajpal and Pappu @ Chandrapal were allegedly roaming
nearby.

-3-
Crl. Appeal No.372 of 2018
3. The search party thereafter proceeded towards the place indicated
by the said witnesses. Near the sugarcane filed of Ram Kumar, they
allegedly found a hairband, a pair of slippers belonging to the
deceased, a brown colour purse containing the driving licence of
accused – Neerajpal and a mobile phone. While continuing the
search, they noticed the dupatta of the deceased lying nearby pond.
Upon entering the pond, the dead body of the deceased was
recovered. It was alleged that after committing rape and murder,
the accused persons had concealed the dead body in the pond with
an intention to hush up the matter.
4. On the basis of written report, submitted by Amar Pal (P.W.1), Case
Crime No.958 of 2011, under Sections 302, 201, 376 I.P.C. was
registered at Police Station Pihani, District- Hardoi against accused-
Neerajpal and Pappu @ Chandrapal. The Investigating Officer
conducted the inquest proceedings, prepared the necessary police
papers and sent the dead body for post-mortem. During
investigation, the Investigating Officer prepared the site plan,
collected the articles allegedly recovered from the place of
occurrence and recorded the statements of the witnesses under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. The post-mortem examination disclosed
ante-mortem injuries on the neck and private parts of the deceased.
The cause of death was opined to be asphyxia as a result of
throttling. Vaginal smear slides and swabs were collected and
preserved for forensic examination.

-4-
Crl. Appeal No.372 of 2018
5. During the course of investigation, accused- Neerajpal and co-
accused Pappu @ Chandrapal were arrested on 02.11.2011, it is
alleged that on the pointing out of accused- Neerajpal, his pant and
slippers were recovered from the sugarcane field. Blood samples
of both the accused were thereafter collected for D.N.A. profiling
under Section 53-A Cr.P.C. and were forwarded to the Forensic
Science Laboratory for examination. After completion of
investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet
against both the accused for offences punishable under Sections
376, 302 and 201 I.P.C. The case being exclusively triable by the
Court of Sessions, hence it was committed to the Court of Sessions,
where charges were framed against the accused-persons. The
accused denied the charges and claimed trial.
6. To establish the case, the prosecution examined twelve witnesses
and proved the documentary evidence including the tahrir, chik
FIR, recovery memos, inquest report, site plan, post-mortem report,
medical evidence, DNA related documents and the report of the
Forensic Science Laboratory. Upon submission of the prosecution
evidence, the statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
were recorded wherein they denied the prosecution allegations,
pleaded false implication and asserted that false evidence had been
fabricated against them in connivance with the police.
7. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record,
the learned Trial Court by judgment and order dated 16.11.2017

-5-
Crl. Appeal No.372 of 2018
convicted the appellant- Neerajpal under Sections 302, 376 and 201
I.P.C. and sentenced him accordingly, while co-accused Pappu @
Chandrapal has been acquitted from the charges on the above
mentioned sections. Aggrieved thereby, appellant- Neerajpal
preferred the present appeal before this Court.
Deposition of Prosecution Witnesses and Defence Witnesses
8. Amar Pal (P.W.1), the informant and father of the deceased,
deposed that on 30.10.2011 at about 2:00 P.M., his minor daughter
(deceased) had gone to the field situated towards the western side
of the village for cutting fodder (chara), as she did not return till
evening, he along with other villagers started searching for her.
During the search, Pradeep Kumar (P.W.2) and Manoj Kumar
(P.W.3) informed him that they had seen the accused Neerajpal and
Pappu @ Chandrapal near the place where the deceased was cutting
fodder. Thereafter, the slippers of the deceased, a purse containing
the driving licence of the accused-Neerajpal and one G-9 mobile
phone were allegedly recovered from the sugarcane field of Ram
Kumar, while the dead body of the deceased was recovered from
the nearby pond. He proved the written report -Tahrir (Ext.Ka-1),
recovery memo and identified the material exhibits. In his cross-
examination, he admitted that he had not himself seen either of the
accused with the deceased or committing the offence and that the
allegations in the FIR were founded upon the information given by
Pradeep Kumar (P.W.2) and Manoj Kumar (P.W.3).

-6-
Crl. Appeal No.372 of 2018
9. Pradeep Kumar (P.W.2) deposed that while returning from his field
along with Manoj Kumar (P.W.3) at about 2 -3 P.M., he had seen
the deceased cutting fodder and the accused Neerajpal and Pappu
@ Chandrapal roaming nearby. Later, when the deceased could not
be traced, he informed the informant about the presence of both the
accused near the place of occurrence. During cross-examination,
he admitted that the informant was his real uncle. He was subjected
to lengthy cross-examination, wherein several omissions and
inconsistencies regarding the occurrence, the clothes worn by the
deceased and the surrounding circumstances were brought on
record.
10. Manoj Kumar (P.W.3) did not support the prosecution case. He
categorically stated that he was not present in the village on the date
of occurrence, had not seen the deceased or the accused near the
field and had never furnished any such information to the
informant. He denied this statement regarding under Section 161
Cr.P.C. and was declared hostile by the prosecution.
11. Kamal Kishore (P.W.4) also denied his earlier statement and also
denied having witnessed the accused carrying the body of the
deceased or throwing it into the pond. He further denied witnessing
the alleged recovery of the clothes of accused Neerajpal and stated
that his signatures had been obtained on blank papers. He was also
declared hostile by the prosecution.

-7-
Crl. Appeal No.372 of 2018
12. Ramasarey (P.W.5), a witness to the recovery memo and inquest
proceedings, did not support the prosecution. He denied the alleged
recoveries and asserted that his signature had been obtained on
blank papers. He further denied having made any statements to the
Investigating Officer implicating the accused and was declared
hostile.
13. Vijay Kumar (P.W.6), in whose name the Airtel SIM card
recovered from the mobile phone was allegedly issued, denied
having obtained the SIM card or having handed it over to the
accused- Neerajpal. He also denied knowing the accused and was
declared hostile by the prosecution.
14. Dr. Amarjeet Singh Ajmani (P.W.7), who conducted the post-
mortem examination, found ante-mortem injuries over the neck and
extensive injuries on the private parts of the deceased. He opined
that the cause of death was asphyxia resulting from ante-mortem
strangulation; vaginal swabs and slides were preserved for
microscopic examination and D.N.A. analysis. In his cross-
examination, he stated that the time of death could also be
consistent with the night of 30.10.2011 and admitted that no mud,
moss or water hyacinth was found on the body.
15. S.I. Chheda Lal (P.W.8) proved the inquest proceedings and the
related documents. He stated that panchnama was prepared and the
dead body was sent for post-mortem. During cross-examination,

-8-
Crl. Appeal No.372 of 2018
he admitted that the name of the accused did not find place in the
inquest papers and that the panchnama proceedings were conducted
at the residence of the informant.
16. Dr. Praveen Kumar (P.W.9) corroborated the evidence of P.W.7
regarding the post-mortem examination and proved the collection
of vaginal swabs and blood samples of both accused for D.N.A.
profiling. During cross-examination, he admitted that the blood
samples had actually been drawn by a Laboratory Technician and
also stated that delay in testing could adversely affect the integrity
of the samples.
17. S.I. Sarvendra Nath Bargah (P.W.10), the Investigating Officer
deposed regarding the registration of the case, inspection of the
place of occurrence, preparation of site plans, recovery of the
articles from the spot, arrest of both the accused, recovery of clothes
at the instance of the accused- Neerajpal, dispatch of exhibits for
forensic examination and submission of charge sheet. In cross-
examination, he admitted that there was no eye-witness to the
occurrence, that the exact place and time of the incident could not
be ascertained during investigation and that nothing incriminating
was recovered from the accused- Chandrapal. He further admitted
that no effort was made to verify the ownership of the recovered
clothes or to establish the connection of the recovered mobile phone
with accused Neerajpal through independent evidence.

-9-
Crl. Appeal No.372 of 2018
18. S.I. Raghvendra Singh (P.W.11) proved the chik FIR and
corresponding general diary entries relating to registration of the
case. During cross-examination, he admitted that the special report
submitted before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate on
09.11.2011 and relevant column regarding dispatch from the police
station did not mention the date of dispatch.
19. Kamlesh Kumar (D.W.1), examined in defence, deposed that there
existed political rivalry between the families of the informant and
accused– Pappu @ Chandrapal, arising out of Block Development
Committee Elections. According to him, ever since the said
election, relations between the two groups had remained strained,
resulting in false implication of the accused due to previous enmity.
Submissions of learned counsel for the appellant
20. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently assailed the judgment
and order of conviction, passed by the learned Trial Court,
contending that the same is contrary to the evidence available on
record and suffers from serious factual as well as legal infirmities.
It has been submitted that the prosecution has utterly failed to
establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances so as to
bring the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. The
conviction, it was urged, rests mainly on suspicion and
conjectures which can never substitute legal proof.

-10-
Crl. Appeal No.372 of 2018
21. It was further submitted that the entire prosecution case hinges upon
the evidence of the alleged last seen witness, namely, Pradeep
Kumar (P.W.2), who is admittedly a close relative of the informant
and, therefore, an interested witness. His testimony, according to
the learned counsel, is replete with material contradictions,
inconsistencies and improvements, rendering it wholly unreliable.
It was argued that the only other alleged last seen witness, Manoj
Kumar (P.W.3), did not support the prosecution case and was
declared hostile. In the absence of trustworthy corroboration, the
testimony of Pradeep Kumar (P.W.2) could not have been made the
sole basis for recording conviction. Learned counsel further
contended that the alleged recoveries relied upon by the prosecution
did not inspire confidence. The recovery witness, namely, Kamal
Kishore (P.W.4) and Ramasarey (P.W.5), turned hostile and denied
the alleged recoveries. The independent recovery witness was
withheld by the prosecution without any explanation. It was
submitted that the alleged recovery of the driving licence and
mobile phone from the place of occurrence and the subsequent
recovery of the clothes at the instance of appellant- Neerajpal were
not proved in accordance with law and could not be treated as
incriminating circumstances against the appellant.
22. It was next submitted that the prosecution failed to establish any
nexus between the recovered mobile phone and the appellant
-Neerajpal. Vijay Kumar (P.W.6), in whose name the SIM card

-11-
Crl. Appeal No.372 of 2018
was allegedly issued, completely disowned the prosecution case
and was declared hostile. Despite obtaining the call detail records,
the Investigating Officer failed to examine any witness or produce
any material connecting the mobile phone or SIM card with
appellant- Neerajpal. Consequently, the alleged recovery of the
mobile phone loses all evidential significance.
23. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the
investigation suffers from grave lapses. No eye witnesses to the
occurrence were found during investigation. The Investigating
Officer himself admitted that the exact place and time of occurrence
could not be ascertained. It was also submitted that the FIR was
forwarded/produced before the court of the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate after an unexplained delay, the inquest proceedings
suffered from material irregularities, and the prosecution failed to
establish who had actually recovered the dead body from the pond.
These serious lapses, according to the learned counsel, cast a
substantial doubt on the fairness of the investigation and the
genuineness of the prosecution story. Learned counsel also
questioned the evidentiary value of the D.N.A. evidence by
submitting that the prosecution failed to prove the chain of custody
of the biological samples beyond doubt. It was urged that the blood
samples were actually obtained by the Laboratory Technician, who
was never examined, and the prosecution failed to establish that the
samples remained intact throughout the process. The learned Trial

-12-
Crl. Appeal No.372 of 2018
Court, therefore, erred in placing implicit reliance upon the D.N.A.
report without first satisfying itself about the sanctity of the
sampling and forwarding procedure.
24. She further pointed out that the guidelines laid down by Hon'ble the
Apex Court in Attavellai @ Devakar v. State of Tamil Nadu,
reported in 2025 INSC 845, are mandatory in nature and are
required to be followed strictly to ensure the integrity and sanctity
of the chain of custody of D.N.A. evidence. It is submitted that the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, while expressing concern over the absence
of a uniform procedure for handling D.N.A. evidence, has issued
comprehensive directions to be followed in all cases involving
DNA evidence. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced below:-
“44. This lack of a common procedure to be followed is
concerning. As such, we issue the following directions,
which shall be followed henceforth, in all cases where DNA
Evidence is involved-
1. The collection of DNA samples once made after due care
and compliance of all necessary procedure including swift
and appropriate packaging including a) FIR number and
date; b) Section and the statute involved therein; c) details
of I.O., Police station; and d) requisite serial number shall
be duly documented. The document recording the collection
shall have the signatures and designations of the medical
professional present, the investigating officer and
independent witnesses. Here only we may clarify that the
absence of independent witnesses shall not be taken to be
compromising to the collection of such evidence, but the

-13-
Crl. Appeal No.372 of 2018
efforts made to join such witnesses and the eventual
inability to do so shall be duly put down in record.
2. The Investigating Officer shall be responsible for the
transportation of the DNA evidence to the concerned police
station or the hospital concerned, as the case may be. He
shall also be responsible for ensuring that the samples so
taken reach the concerned forensic science laboratory with
dispatch and in any case not later than 48-hours from the
time of collection. Should any extraneous circumstance
present itself and the 48-hours timeline cannot be complied
with, the reason for the delay shall be duly recorded in the
case diary. Throughout, the requisite efforts be made to
preserve the samples as per the requirement corresponding
to the nature of the sample taken.
3. In the time that the DNA samples are stored pending trial
appeal etc., no package shall be opened, altered or resealed
without express authorisation of the Trial Court acting upon
a statement of a duly qualified and experienced medical
professional to the effect that the same shall not
have a negative impact on the sanctity of the evidence and
with the Court being assured that such a step is necessary
for proper and just outcome of the Investigation/Trial.
4. Right from the point of collection to the logical end, i.e.,
conviction or acquittal of the accused, a Chain of Custody
Register shall be maintained wherein each and every
movement of the evidence shall be recorded with counter
sign at each end thereof stating also the reason therefor. This
Chain of Custody Register shall necessarily be appended
as part of the Trial Court record. Failure to maintain the
same shall render the I.O. responsible for explaining such
lapse.

-14-
Crl. Appeal No.372 of 2018
25. Lastly, it was submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to
appreciate the defence evidence in its proper perspective. Kamlesh
Kumar (D.W.1) established the existence of previous political
rivalry between the family of the informant and the accused,
thereby lending support to the defence plea of false implication. It
was, therefore, urged that the prosecution having failed to prove its
case beyond reasonable doubt, the impugned judgment of
conviction and sentence is liable to be set aside and the appellant-
Neerajpal deserves to be acquitted of all the charges.
Submission of learned A.G.A.
26. Per contra, Sri S.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State
supported the impugned judgment and order of conviction and
submitted that the learned Trial Court has rightly appreciated the
oral as well as documentary evidence available on record and has
recorded the conviction upon due consideration of the entire
material. It was contended that the findings recorded by the learned
Trial Court are based upon cogent evidence and do not suffer from
any perversity, illegality or manifest error warranting interference
by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
27. Learned A.G.A. submitted that the prosecution has successfully
established a complete chain of circumstantial evidence pointing
unerringly towards the guilt of the appellant. According to him, the
evidence of Pradeep Kumar (P.W.2), who had last seen the
appellant in the vicinity of the place where the deceased was cutting

-15-
Crl. Appeal No.372 of 2018
fodder, shortly before her disappearance, constitutes a vital
circumstance. Merely because Pradeep Kumar (P.W.2) is a relative
of the informant, his testimony cannot be discarded, particularly
when it inspires confidence and withstands the test of cross-
examination.
28. It was further submitted that the recoveries effected during the
course of investigation, namely, the purse containing the driving
licence of the appellant- Neerajpal and mobile phone recovered
from the place of occurrence and the subsequent recovery of the
clothes of appellant- Neerajpal at his pointing out, constitute
incriminating circumstances corroborating the prosecution case.
These recoveries read conjointly with the medical and forensic
evidence, complete the chain of circumstances establishing the
complicity of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
29. Learned A.G.A. further contended that the post-mortem report
clearly establishes that the deceased had been subjected to forcible
sexual assault and had died due to ante-mortem strangulation. The
D.N.A. evidence also lends scientific corroboration to the
prosecution version and was rightly relied upon by the learned Trial
Court. It was submitted that there is no material on record to doubt
the authenticity or reliability of the forensic evidence.
30. Learned A.G.A. further submitted that even assuming certain
omissions or irregularities had occurred during the investigation,
the same cannot by themselves constitute a ground for acquittal

-16-
Crl. Appeal No.372 of 2018
when the substantive evidence adduced by the prosecution
otherwise inspires confidence. It was argued that defects in
investigation cannot eclipse otherwise reliable and trustworthy
evidence, nor can they enure to the benefit of the accused where the
prosecution has otherwise succeeded in proving its case beyond
reasonable doubt. Learned A.G.A., therefore, submitted that the
impugned judgment is well reasoned and based upon a proper
appreciation of evidence on record. It was accordingly prayed that
the appeal being devoid of merit be dismissed and the conviction
and sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court be affirmed.
Analysis
31. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival
submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and
have meticulously perused the entire evidence available on record,
including the oral and documentary evidence, the medical and
forensic evidence, the impugned judgment and the record of the
Trial Court.
32. At the outset, it is apposite to note that the present case is admittedly
based entirely on circumstantial evidence, there being no eye-
witness to the occurrence. It is equally undisputed that the
conviction of the appellant was, presumably, based upon three
incriminating circumstances, namely, (i) the evidence relating to
the last seen theory; (ii) the recoveries allegedly effected during the
course of investigation and (iii) the D.N.A./forensic evidence. The

-17-
Crl. Appeal No.372 of 2018
correctness of the findings recorded by the learned trial court,
therefore, has to be examined in the light of the settled principles
governing a case resting solely upon circumstantial evidence.
33. It is well settled that, in a case based upon circumstantial evidence,
every incriminating circumstance relied upon by the prosecution
must be fully established, all such circumstances must form a
complete and unbroken chain pointing only towards the guilt of the
accused and the chain must be of such a conclusive nature as to
exclude every hypothesis consistent with the innocence of the
accused. Suspicion, however raised, cannot take the place of legal
proof, nor can conviction be founded upon conjectures or surmises.
The prosecution must stand on the strength of its own evidence and
cannot derive advantage from any witness in the defence.
34. In the present case, the prosecution seeks to establish the guilt of
the appellant primarily on the basis of the testimony of Pradeep
Kumar (P.W.2), who is sole witness supporting the prosecution on
the aspect of the last seen circumstance, inasmuch as Manoj Kumar
(P.W.3), who was cited as another witness to the same
circumstance, did not support the prosecution case and was
declared hostile. Likewise, the prosecution has relied upon the
alleged recovery of driving licence and mobile phone from the
place of occurrence and the subsequent recovery of the clothes of
appellant- Neerajpal, besides placing reliance upon the medical and
D.N.A. evidence. Whether these circumstances have been

-18-
Crl. Appeal No.372 of 2018
satisfactorily proved and whether they collectively constitute a
complete chain of circumstances is the principal issue requiring
determination in the present appeal.
35. Accordingly, the evidence adduced by the prosecution shall now be
examined under the following heads:-
(i) Whether the prosecution has successfully established the “last
seen” circumstances.
(ii) Whether the recoveries allegedly effected during investigation
inspire confidence and can be treated as incriminating
circumstances.
(iii) Whether the medical and D.N.A. evidence conclusively
connects the appellant with the commission of the offence.
(iv) Whether the cumulative effect of the proved circumstances
constitute a complete chain excluding every hypothesis other than
the guilt of the appellant.
Whether the prosecution has successfully established the “last seen”
circumstances
36. The first and foremost circumstance relied upon by the prosecution
is the “last seen theory” which forms the foundation of the
prosecution case. The learned Trial Court has substantially found
the conviction of the appellant on the testimony of Pradeep Kumar
(P.W.2), treating him as a principal witness of the last seen

-19-
Crl. Appeal No.372 of 2018
circumstances. Since the present case relies entirely upon
circumstantial evidence, it becomes necessary to examine the
credibility and evidentiary value of his testimony with greater care
and caution. It is noteworthy that Pradeep Kumar (P.W.2) is the
only witness who has supported the prosecution on the aspect of the
“last seen” theory as Manoj Kumar (P.W.3) who was cited as
another witness to the same circumstance, as completely resiled
from the prosecution case and was declared hostile. Thus, the entire
prosecution case so far as the “last seen” circumstance is concerned,
relies solely upon the testimony of Pradeep Kumar (P.W.2). A
careful reading of the evidence of Pradeep Kumar (P.W.2) reveals
that he is admittedly the nephew of the informant- Amarpal and the
deceased was his cousin, but merely because the witness is related
to the deceased, his testimony cannot be discarded solely on that
ground. The settled position of law is that the evidence of a related
witness is not inadmissible; however, it is required to be scrutinized
with greater care and caution. If upon such scrutiny, the testimony
is found to be cogent, trustworthy and inspire confidence, it can
safely be relied upon. Conversely, where a material contradiction
or inherent improbabilities exist, the Court must seek independent
corroborations before acting upon such evidence; in this regard,
reliance may be placed upon a judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of State of U.P. vs. Kishanpal & Ors, reported in (2008) 16
SCC 73, relevant para are being reproduced below: -

-20-
Crl. Appeal No.372 of 2018
“18. The plea of defence that it would not be safe to accept
the evidence of the eye witnesses who are the close relatives
of the deceased, has not been accepted by this Court. There
is no such universal rule as to warrant rejection of the
evidence of a witness merely because he/she was related to
or interested in the parties to either side. In such cases, if the
presence of such a witness at the time of occurrence is
proved or considered to be natural and the evidence
tendered by such witness is found in the light of the
surrounding circumstances and probabilities of the case to
be true, it can provide a good and sound basis for conviction
of the accused. Where it is shown that there is enmity and
the witnesses are near relatives too, the Court has a duty to
scrutinize their evidence with great care, caution and
circumspection and be very careful too in weighing such
evidence. The testimony of related witnesses, if after deep
scrutiny, found to be credible cannot be discarded.
19. It is now well settled that the evidence of witness cannot
be discarded merely on the ground that he is a related
witness, if otherwise the same is found credible. The witness
could be a relative but that does not mean his statement
should be rejected. In such a case, it is the duty of the Court
to be more careful in the matter of scrutiny of evidence of
the interested witness, and if, on such scrutiny it is found
that the evidence on record of such interested witness is
worth credence, the same would not be discarded merely on
the ground that the witness is an interested witness. Caution
is to be applied by the court while scrutinizing the
evidence of the interested witness.
20. It is well settled that it is the quality of the evidence and
not the quantity of the evidence which is required to be

-21-
Crl. Appeal No.372 of 2018
judged by the court to place credence on the statement.
The ground that the witness being a close relative and
consequently being a partisan witness, should not be relied
upon, has no substance. Relationship is not a factor to affect
credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a
relation would not conceal the actual culprit and make
allegations against an innocent person. A foundation has to
be laid if plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the
Court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse the
evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible.”
(Emphasis supplied)
37. Furthermore, it is important to mention that even in the case of an
interested witness, the corroboration is done by the rule of
prudence, not by the rule of law, as in a similar instance is taken by
the Apex court in the case Sarwan Singh vs. State of Punjab
reported in (1976) 4 SCC 369, relevant para are being reproduced
below: -
“10. The next argument by learned Counsel for the
appellants was that the evidence of the eye-witnesses
consisted of partisan evidence and should not, therefore, be
relied upon, particularly because the evidence showed that
there were two opposing factions in the village - one led by
the deceased and the other by the accused. Mr. Hardy,
however, fairly conceded that even though the eye-
witnesses may have belonged to the group of the deceased
there was nothing to show that the two groups were on
inimical terms with each other, but he contended that the
fact that the witnesses came from one particular group was
by itself sufficient to show the interested nature of the
evidence. In our opinion this argument is not based on a

-22-
Crl. Appeal No.372 of 2018
correct appreciation of the evidence. To begin with, it
cannot be said that P.W. 8 Gurdev Singh and P.W. 9 Pal
Singh were interested or partisan witnesses. All that the
accused have been able to show is that P.W. 8 Gurdev Singh
was on visiting terms with the deceased. In villages where
population is scanty every villager is usually on visiting
terms with another villager, unless there is animus between
them. That by itself is not sufficient to label him as being a
partisan witness. So far as P.W. 9 Pal Singh is concerned,
there is positive evidence to show that he was not at all an
interested witness but was a completely independent
witness P W. 2 Ajaib Singh the first eve-witness has stated
at page 40 of Paner Book No. II that Pal Singh was not on
visiting terms with Jit Singh prior to the occurrence. When
Mr Hardy drew our attention to this statement he seemed
to suggest that the word "not" was printed by mistake and
what really was recorded by the Judge was that Pal Singh
was on visiting terms with Jit Singh We have, however,
perused the original record and we find that the word "not"
is present there also. What has happened is that the word
"on" after "not" seems to have been inadvertently omitted.
But then the sentence read as a whole clearly indicates that
Pal Singh was not on visiting terms with Jit Singh. There is
no evidence to show that Pal Singh was in any way closely
connected or interested in the deceased, apart from the fact
that he was a co-villager. In these circumstances, even if the
evidence of Ajaib Singh and Gurdev Singh be treated to be
interested and partisan, since their evidence is corroborated
by the evidence of Pal Singh who is an independent witness.
The infirmity from which the evidence of P.W.2 Ajaib
Singh and P.W.8 Gurdev Singh suffered disappears.
Moreover, it is not the law that the evidence of an interested
witness should be equated with that of tainted evidence or

-23-
Crl. Appeal No.372 of 2018
that of an approver so as to require corroboration as a matter
of necessity. The evidence of an interested witness does not
suffer from any infirmity as such, but the Courts require as
a rule of prudence, not as a rule of law, that the evidence of
such witnesses should be scrutinised with a little care. Once
that approach is made and the Court is satisfied that the
evidence of interested witnesses have a ring of truth such
evidence could be relied upon even without corroboration.
Indeed there may be circumstances where only interested
evidence may be available and no other, e.g. when an
occurrence takes place at mid-night in the house when the
only witnesses who could see the occurrence may be the
family members. In such cases it would not be proper to
insist that the evidence of the family members should be
disbelieved merely because of their interestedness. We,
however, need not dilate on this point, because assuming
as we have said that P.W. 2 Ajaib Singh and P.W.8 Gurdev
Singh were interested witnesses, here we have the fact that
their evidence has been clearly and consistently
corroborated on all points by P.W.9 Pal Singh who is an
independent witness and who bore no animus whatsoever
against the accused. The learned Additional Sessions
Judge has, however, overlooked this important aspect of the
case and we find no reason whatsoever to distrust the
evidence of Pal Singh even on its intrinsic merit. We have
carefully perused the evidence of P.W.2 Ajaib Singh. P.W.8
Gurdev Singh and P.W.9 Pal Singh and we are satisfied that
their evidence is creditworthy and there are no strong or
cogent reasons why their evidence should be completely
discarded.”
38. In the present case, Pradeep Kumar (P.W.2) was subjected to an
extensive cross-examination. A close scrutiny of his disposition

-24-
Crl. Appeal No.372 of 2018
discloses material inconsistencies and improvements on vital
aspects of the prosecution case. During one part of his testimony,
he stated that the deceased was wearing a salwar-kurta when he
allegedly saw her cutting fodder, whereas during his subsequent
deposition, he expressed his inability to state what the deceased was
wearing. Likewise, there are inconsistencies regarding the
implements allegedly being used by the deceased for cutting fodder
and the surrounding circumstances in which the accused were
allegedly seen. These are not minor discrepancies, attributable to
lapse of memory, but relate to material facts forming the substratum
of the prosecution case.
39. Another significant circumstance which weakens the prosecution
case is that Pradeep Kumar (P.W.2) merely stated that he had seen
the appellants roaming near the place where the deceased was
cutting fodder. He did not depose that the deceased was in the
exclusive company of either of the appellants or that they were seen
proceeding together. The expression ‘last seen’ together supposes
proximity of time and place, coupled with circumstances indicating
that the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused.
The evidence of Pradeep Kumar (P.W.2) falls short of satisfying
this requirement. At best it establishes the presence of the appellant
in the vicinity of the agricultural field, which by itself cannot
construe the incriminating circumstances of last seen together. It is
equally significant that the informant- Amarpal (P.W.1) admitted in

-25-
Crl. Appeal No.372 of 2018
his cross-examination that he had not himself seen either of the
appellant with the deceased nor had he witnessed the occurrence.
The FIR was lodged solely on the basis of information allegedly
furnished by Pradeep Kumar (P.W.2) and Manoj Kumar (P.W.3).
Since Manoj Kumar (P.W.3) had not supported the prosecution, the
very foundation of the FIR in so far as the ‘last seen’ circumstance
is concerned, stands materially weakened.
40. The Hon’ble Apex Court has consistently held that the ‘last seen’
theory is a weak kind of evidence and cannot by itself form the sole
basis of conviction unless it is supported by other incriminating
circumstances, completing the chain of evidence. The evidentiary
value of such a circumstance depends upon the proximity of time
between the accused and the deceased being seen together and the
recovery of the dead body coupled with reliable corroborative
evidence. Where the evidence of ‘last seen’ witness itself is
doubtful or suffers from material contradictions, it would be unsafe
to sustain the conviction solely on that basis.
41. In the facts of the present case, we find that the testimony of
Pradeep Kumar (P.W.2) does not inspire the daily of components
required for sustaining a conviction in a case resting entirely on
circumstantial evidence. His testimony suffers from material
inconsistencies, lacks independent corroboration and is further
weakened by the hostile testimony of Manoj Kumar (P.W.3), who
was the only other witness of the alleged ‘last seen’ circumstances.

-26-
Crl. Appeal No.372 of 2018
Consequently, the prosecution has failed to establish the last seen
together circumstances beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the
first incriminating circumstance relied upon by the prosecution
cannot be held to have been proved with the degree of certainty
required in criminal jurisprudence.
Whether the recoveries allegedly effected during investigation inspire
confidence and can be treated as incriminating circumstances
42. The second circumstance relied upon by the prosecution pertains to
the recoveries allegedly effected during the course of investigation.
The prosecution seeks to connect the appellants with the crime
through two sets of recoveries. (i) The recovery made on
31.10.2011 from the place of occurrence comprising a pair of
sleepers of the deceased, a hair band, a purse containing the driving
licence of appellant- Neerajpal and a G-9 mobile phone and (ii) the
recovery allegedly made on 02.11.2011 at the pointing out of
appellant-Neerajpal comprising a pair of pants and a pair of local
slippers. According to the prosecution, these recoveries constitute
vital incriminating circumstances linking the appellant with the
commission of the offence.
43. Having carefully scrutinized the evidence relating to the aforesaid
recoveries, we find ourselves unable to concur with the findings
recorded by the learned Trial Court.

-27-
Crl. Appeal No.372 of 2018
44. The first recovery was allegedly witnessed by Amarpal (P.W.1),
Ramasarey (P.W.5) and one Rambhajan. Significantly, Ramasarey
(P.W.5), one of the attesting witnesses, did not support the
prosecution and categorically denied that any recovery had been
effected in his presence. He further deposed that his signature had
been obtained on blank papers and denied having witnessed the
seizure of the articles relied upon by the prosecution. He was,
therefore, declared hostile.
45. Equally significant is the fact that Rambhajan, who was an
independent witness of the alleged recovery, was not examined by
the prosecution. No explanation whatsoever has been furnished for
withholding this material witness. It is well settled that where
independent witnesses to a recovery are available, but are not
examined without any plausible explanation, the Court is required
to examine the prosecution version with great circumspection,
particularly when the remaining witness is an interested witness.
46. Consequently, the only witness supporting the first recovery is
Amarpal (P.W.1), who is not only the informant, but also the father
of the deceased. Although the testimony of a related witness cannot
be discarded solely on account of his relationship where the
recovery itself is disputed, and the independent witnesses have been
withheld while another recovery witness has turned hostile,
prudence demands corroboration from independent evidence,
which is conspicuously absent in the present case. The prosecution

-28-
Crl. Appeal No.372 of 2018
has further relied upon the recovery of a G-9 mobile phone
allegedly belonging to the appellant – Neerajpal. However, this
circumstance also does not withstand judicial scrutiny. The
investigation revealed that the SIM card inserted in the said mobile
phone was in the name of Vijay Kumar (P.W.6). When examined
before the Court, Vijay Kumar (P.W.6) categorically denied having
obtained the SIM card in question or having ever handed it over to
the appellant-Neerajpal. He further denied even knowing the
appellant and was declared hostile by the prosecution.
47. Though the Investigating Officer obtained the call detail records of
the mobile phone, no efforts were made to establish that the mobile
phone had actually been used by appellant- Neerajpal. Neither were
the call detail records analysed, nor were any subscribers, contacts
or other independent witnesses examined to connect the appellant
with the alleged mobile phone. In the absence of any such evidence,
the mere recovery of a mobile phone from the place of occurrence
cannot be treated as an incriminating circumstance against the
appellant.
48. The prosecution has also relied upon the recovery of the driving
licence of the appellant- Neerajpal from the sugarcane field. While
the presence of the driving licence at the place of occurrence may
undoubtedly have given rise to the suspicion, suspicion, however
strong, cannot constitute successful proof. Apart from the testimony
of Amarpal (P.W.1), there is no independent evidence establishing

-29-
Crl. Appeal No.372 of 2018
the manner in which the driving licence came to be recovered from
the place of occurrence. Furthermore, the defence has seriously
questioned this recovery, pointing to glaring contradictions.
Amarpal (P.W.1) testified that the Investigating Officer, Sarvendra
Nath Bargah (P.W.10), visited the accused’s residence on
31.10.2011, the very day the inquest was conducted, and the first
recovery was made. In contrast, Sarvendra Nath Bargah (P.W.10)
himself stated that he went to the accused’s house only on
01.11.2011. This inconsistency becomes crucial because the
driving licence and other articles (claimed to be part of the first
recovery on dated 31.10.2011) were allegedly recovered near the
crime spot. Yet, the record does not disclose whether the
Investigating Officer first visited the accused’s house and thereafter
proceeded to the crime scene, or vice versa. The absence of this
sequence renders the recovery highly doubtful. If indeed the
Investigating Officer went to the accused’s house immediately after
the inquest and then claimed recovery near the crime scene, the
possibility of planting cannot be ruled out. This unexplained
discrepancy undermines the credibility of the recovery and casts
serious doubt on its authenticity.
49. The suspicion is further strengthened by other irregularities:
Pradeep Kumar (P.W.2), the key “last seen” witness, had his
statement recorded only after a delay of 7–8 days, despite his
importance. It is needless to mention that the investigating officer,

-30-
Crl. Appeal No.372 of 2018
while deposing in court, needs to explain the investigation process
step by step; a similar view was taken by Hon’ble the Apex Court
in the case of Subhash Chand vs. the State of Rajasthan, reported
in (2002) 1 SCC 702, where the Apex Court clearly highlighted the
importance of the investigating officer adducing evidence in court,
explaining step by step how the investigation proceeded. The
relevant para is being reproduced below :-
26. Before parting with the case, we would like to place on
record an observation of ours, touching an aspect of the
case. There are clueless crimes committed. The factum of a
cognizable crime having been committed is known but
neither the identity of the accused is disclosed nor is there
any indication available of the witnesses who would be able
to furnish useful and relevant evidence. Such offences put to
test the wits of an investigating officer. A vigilant
investigating officer, well-versed with the techniques of the
job, is in a position to collect the threads of evidence,
finding out the path which leads to the culprit. The ends,
which the administration of criminal justice serves, are not
achieved merely by catching hold of the culprit. The
accusation has to be proved to hilt in a court of law. The
evidence of investigating officer given in the court should
have a rhythm explaining step by step how the investigation
proceeded leading to detection of the offender and
collection of evidence against him. This is necessary to
exclude the likelihood of any innocent having been picked
up and branded as culprit and then the gravity of the offence
arousing human sympathy persuading the mind to be carried
away by doubtful or dubious circumstances, treating them
as of 'beyond doubt' evidentiary value.

-31-
Crl. Appeal No.372 of 2018
50. In the absence of reliable corroboration and in view of the
deficiencies noticed in the recovery proceedings, these
circumstances by themselves cannot conclusively establish the
involvement of the appellant in the commission of the offence.
51. So far as the second recovery on dated 02.11.2011 of a pant and a
pair of slippers allegedly made at the pointing out of appellant-
Neerajpal is concerned, the prosecution case suffers from similar
infirmities. The alleged recovery witnesses – Manoj Kumar
(P.W.3), Kamal Kishore (P.W.4) did not support the prosecution
and were declared hostile. They denied witnessing any recovery
and asserted that their signatures had been obtained on blank
papers. Consequently, the only witness supporting the recovery is
once again Amarpal (informant- P.W.1), whose testimony, for the
reasons allegedly discussed, requires independent corroboration.
52. Moreover, the Investigating Officer admitted during cross-
examination that the recovered clothes and slippers did not bear any
distinctive identification marks. Although a tailor’s label was
stitched on the pants, no investigation was conducted to ascertain
for whom the pants had been stitched or whether it belongs to the
appellant- Neerajpal. Likewise, no forensic examination was
conducted to connect the recovered articles with the crime. These
omissions assume significance in a case resting entirely upon
satisfactory evidence.

-32-
Crl. Appeal No.372 of 2018
53. The recoveries relied upon by the prosecution suffer from serious
evidentiary deficiencies. Material recovery witnesses have either
turned hostile or have not been examined. No satisfactory
independent corroboration had been adduced, and the prosecution
has failed to establish an unbroken chain and unbroken nexus
between the recovered articles and the appellant. Consequently, the
alleged recoveries cannot be regarded as reliable incriminating
circumstances capable of completing the chain of circumstantial
evidence. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the
prosecution has failed to prove the recoveries in the manner known
to law, and the learned Trial Court was not justified in placing
implicit reliance upon them for recording the conviction of the
appellant.
Whether the medical and D.N.A. evidence conclusively connects the
appellants with the commission of the offence
54. The next circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is the medical
and forensic evidence, particularly, the post-mortem report and the
D.N.A. report. There can be no dispute with the proposition that
scientific evidence, when duly proved and supported by an
unbroken chain of custody, constitutes a valuable piece of evidence.
Equally well settled, however, is that such evidence not only
establishes the commission of offence but must also conclusively
connect the accused with its commission.

-33-
Crl. Appeal No.372 of 2018
55. In the present case, Dr. Amarjeet Singh Ajmani (P.W.7), who
conducted the post-mortem examination, found contusions over the
neck, fractures on the hyoid bone, lacerations over the genital
region and rupture on the hymen. He opined that the deceased had
died due to asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem strangulation and
that she had been subjected to forcible sexual intercourse prior to
her death. Vaginal smear and slides were preserved for forensic
examination and D.N.A. profiling. Thus, the medical evidence
unequivocally established that the deceased was subjected to sexual
assault and homicidal death. However, the crucial question before
this Court is not whether rape and murder were committed, but
whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving that it was the
appellant who committed those offences.
56. Learned A.G.A. for the State has placed reliance upon the decision
of Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case(s) of Sandeep vs. State of
U.P., (2012) 6 SCC 107 and Santosh Kumar Singh vs. State, (2010)
9 SCC 747.
57. To establish this link, the prosecution relied upon the D.N.A.
evidence. Dr. Praveen Kumar (P.W.9) deposed that vaginal swab
of the deceased and blood samples of both the accused were
collected and forwarded for D.N.A. examination. He proved the
relevant documents prepared in this regard. Nevertheless, during
cross-examination he admitted that the blood samples had actually
been drawn by a laboratory Technician whose name does not find

-34-
Crl. Appeal No.372 of 2018
mention in the report and who was never examined before the
Court. He further admitted that delay in testing biological
samples could affect their integrity.
58. Furthermore, it is also important to point out that biological samples
were collected from the deceased on 31.10.2011, while blood
samples from the accused were obtained on 03.11.2011. Both sets
of samples were forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory
(FSL) on 05.11.2011. Thus, the samples remained in the custody of
the police authority for approximately five days. However, neither
oral testimony nor documentary evidence clarifies where the
samples were deposited during this period, specifically whether
they were kept in the Maalkhana or elsewhere. Surprisingly, the
Maalkhana-in-Charge was not examined. The evidence on record
further reveals that the prosecution has not examined any witness
from the Forensic Science Laboratory to establish the manner in
which the samples were received, preserved, analysed and
examined. Moreover, it is important to place reliance on a decision
of Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Rahul vs. State of Delhi,
Ministry of Home Affairs & Anr. reported in (2023) 1 SCC 83.
While dealing with the issue concerning the evidentiary value of
DNA reports, it has been held that D. N.A. profiling reports cannot
be admitted in evidence ipso facto under Section 293 Cr.P.C, and it
is necessary for the prosecution to prove that the D.N.A. profiling
techniques were reliably applied by the expert. The relevant

-35-
Crl. Appeal No.372 of 2018
excerpts from the said judgment are reproduced herein below for
the sake of ready reference: -
“36. The learned Amicus Curiae has also assailed the
forensic evidence i.e. the report regarding the D.N.A.
profiling dated 18-4-2012 (Ext. P-23/1), giving
incriminating findings. She vehemently submitted that apart
from the fact that the collection of the samples sent for
examination itself was very doubtful, the said forensic
evidence was neither scientifically nor legally proved and
could not have been used as a circumstance against the
appellant accused. The Court finds substance in the said
submissions made by the Amicus Curiae. The D.N.A.
evidence is in the nature of opinion evidence as envisaged
under Section 45 and like any other opinion evidence, its
probative value varies from case to case.
37. x x x x x x x
38. It is true that PW 23 Dr B.K. Mohapatra, Senior
Scientific Officer (Biology) of CFSL, New Delhi had
stepped into the witness box and his report regarding DNA
profiling was exhibited as Ext. PW 23/A, however mere
exhibiting a document would not prove its contents. The
record shows that all the samples relating to the accused and
relating to the deceased were seized by the investigating
officer on 14-2-2012 and 16-2-2012; and they were sent to
CFSL for examination on 27 2-2012. During this period,
they remained in the malkhana of the police station. Under
the circumstances, the possibility of tampering with the
samples collected also could not be ruled out. Neither the
trial court nor the High Court has examined the underlying
basis of the findings in the DNA reports nor have they
examined the fact whether the techniques were reliably

-36-
Crl. Appeal No.372 of 2018
applied by the expert. In the absence of such evidence on
record, all the reports with regard to the DNA profiling
become highly vulnerable, more particularly when the
collection and sealing of the samples sent for examination
were also not free from suspicion.”
(Emphasis supplied)
59. Furthermore, the most disturbing aspect of this case is that the
expert who conducted the D.N.A. examination was not examined
in evidence, and the D.N.A. report was merely exhibited in
evidence by the Investigating Officer (PW-10), who undeniably is
not connected with the report in any manner. It is important to
reproduce the observation of the trial court regarding the DNA
report; the relevant lines from the impugned judgment are being
produced below: -
“The investigation officer sent the sample to the forensic
science laboratory, and it is clear from the forensic science
laboratory report Exhibit A-25 that the source of the
biological material present in the swab related to the
deceased was found to be the same as that of the blood
sample of accused Neerajpal and was not the same as that of
the blood sample of accused Pappu alias, Chandrapal. Thus,
the court comes to the conclusion that the deceased/victim
was raped by the accused Neerajpal.”
60. We are weighed down by melancholy to see this conclusion and the
way the trial court put reliance on the D.N.A. report, without proper
application of its judicial mind, when it was seen from the record
that the Maalkahana-in-Charge was not examined, nor the person

-37-
Crl. Appeal No.372 of 2018
who took the sample to FSL. Also, from perusal of the first D.N.A
report, it appears that some biological material present in the swab
related to the deceased was found to be the same as that of the blood
sample of the accused Neerajpal. Nowhere is it written what this
biological material was, which is why it was important to examine
the D.N.A expert to explain these technical points. And based on
these faulty observations, the trial court convicted the accused. This
clearly shows a laconic trial procedure, which has led to the failure
of a case involving the brutal rape and murder of an innocent girl
child. Thus, in such circumstances, non-examination of the FSL
expert is fatal for the prosecution's case. Furthermore, this Court is
of the considered view that the prosecution's reliance on Santosh
Kumar Singh (supra) and Sandeep (supra) is wholly misconceived
and misplaced. In Santosh Kumar Singh (supra), the prosecution
had established an unbroken and duly proved chain of custody from
the stage of sample collection to its deposit in the Malkhana and
subsequent transmission to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The
Malkhana register was produced in evidence to demonstrate the
safe custody of the samples, and the D.N.A. expert was also
examined to prove the integrity and authenticity of the forensic
process. On the other hand, in Sandeep (supra), the prosecution had
satisfactorily explained every link in the chain of custody from the
collection of the accused's sample until its receipt by the Forensic
Science Laboratory. Therefore, both decisions were rendered on a
factual foundation where the prosecution had successfully proved

-38-
Crl. Appeal No.372 of 2018
the continuity and sanctity of the samples at every stage. In the
present case, however, the prosecution has failed to establish such
an unbroken chain of custody or account for the safe handling and
transmission of the samples. Consequently, the reliance placed
upon the aforesaid decisions is wholly misplaced, as they are clearly
distinguishable on facts and do not advance the prosecution's case.
Furthermore, the supplementary DNA report dated 11.12.2025,
which was produced during the pendency of the appeals before this
Court, we cannot accept it for the reason that before it can be
accepted, we have to remand it back to the trial court for the recall
of the scientific expert, Smt. Madhu Agnihotri, Scientific Officer,
Forensic Science Laboratory, Prayagraj, who will prove this report.
Once that is done, then the verified exercise for the supplementary
questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. would take place. But, the
question remains same that if we do that it will cause great prejudice
to the accused, especially when he had already spent approximately
14 years in jail, as there is a limitation on remitting back to the trial
court, the prosecution needs to be mindful in this regarding that
there is a limitation for accepting certain evidence, in such situation
the prosecution cannot, act on ‘my life my rules’ principle. In this
regard, it is pertinent here to place reliance on the decision of
Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar vs. State (NCT
of Delhi), (2023) 17 SCC 95. The relevant paras are being
reproduced below:-

-39-
Crl. Appeal No.372 of 2018
“22. The law consistently laid down by this Court can be
summarised as under:
22.1. It is the duty of the trial court to put each material
circumstance appearing in the evidence against the accused
specifically, distinctively and separately. The material
circumstance means the circumstance or the material on the
basis of which the prosecution is seeking his conviction.
22.2. The object of examination of the accused under
Section 313 is to enable the accused to explain any
circumstance appearing against him in the evidence.
22.3. The Court must ordinarily eschew material
circumstances not put to the accused from consideration
while dealing with the case of the particular accused.
22.4. The failure to put the material circumstances to the
accused amounts to a serious irregularity. It will vitiate the
trial if it is shown to have prejudiced the accused.
22.5. If any irregularity in putting the material circumstance
to the accused does not result in failure of justice, it becomes
a curable defect. However, while deciding whether the
defect can be cured, one of the considerations will be the
passage of time from the date of the incident.
22.6. In case such irregularity is curable, even the appellate
court can question the accused on the material circumstance
which is not put to him.
22.7. In a given case, the case can be remanded to the trial
court from the stage of recording the supplementary
statement of the accused concerned under Section 313CrPC.

-40-
Crl. Appeal No.372 of 2018
22.8. While deciding the question whether prejudice has
been caused to the accused because of the omission, the
delay in raising the contention is only one of the several
factors to be considered.
27. Even assuming that the defect or irregularity was
curable, the question is whether today, the appellant-
accused can be called upon to explain the said circumstance.
More than 27 years have passed since the date of the
incident. Considering the passage of time, we are of the
view that it will be unjust now at this stage to remit the case
to the trial court for recording further statement of the
appellant under Section 313CrPC. In the facts of the case,
the appellant cannot be called upon to answer something
which has transpired 27 years back. There is one more
aspect of the matter which persuaded us not to pass an order
of remand. The said factor is that the appellant has already
undergone incarceration for a period of 10 years and
4 months.”
61. Tested on the anvil of the above-mentioned judgment of the Apex
Court, from the record, it appears that the present appellant/accused
has served 14 years of incarceration. In such circumstances, if we
now remand back to the trial for examination of an expert Witness
and further for the 313 CrPC proceedings, it will cause great
prejudice to the appellant/accused. Hence, in such a situation, the
prosecution cannot place its reliance on the second supplementary
D.N.A. report. Likewise, no evidence has been adduced to establish
the proper chain of custody of the biological exhibits from the time
of their collection till their examination in the laboratory. In a case

-41-
Crl. Appeal No.372 of 2018
where the conviction is sought to be founded substantially upon
scientific evidence, strict proof of the integrity of the samples
assumes considerable importance.
62. It is equally significant that the prosecution has failed to establish
other independent incriminating circumstances connecting the
appellants with the offence. As already discussed, the last seen
circumstances have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, and
the recoveries relied upon by the prosecution do not inspire
confidence. In such a situation, the D.N.A. evidence cannot be
considered in isolation so as to sustain the conviction without
independent corroboration.
63. The Hon’ble Apex Court has consistently held that D.N.A.
evidence is highly reliable scientific proof; its evidentiary value
depends upon strict proof of collection, preservation, sealing,
transmission and examination of samples. Where doubts arise
regarding the integrity of the sampling process or whether the
surrounding circumstances failed to corroborate the forensic
evidence, the Court is required to evaluate such evidence with due
caution. In the present case, while the medical evidence
conclusively proves that the deceased was raped and murdered, it
does not by itself identify the perpetrators. The forensic evidence
also cannot be treated as conclusive in the absence of satisfactory
proof regarding the chain of custody and when the other
circumstances relied upon by the prosecution failed to inspire

-42-
Crl. Appeal No.372 of 2018
confidence. Consequently, the medical and D.N.A. evidence,
though sufficient to establish the nature of the offence, does not
conclusively connect the appellant with its commission beyond
reasonable doubt. Accordingly, this circumstance also falls short of
completing the chain of circumstantial evidence required for
sustaining the conviction.
Whether the cumulative effect of the proved circumstances constitute a
complete chain excluding every hypothesis other than the guilt of the
appellant
64. Having examined each of the circumstances relied upon by the
prosecution independently, it now falls for consideration whether
(i) cumulatively they form a complete chain pointing unerringly
towards the guilt of the appellant and excluding every hypothesis
consistent with his innocence.
65. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that in a case
resting solely on circumstantial evidence, these circumstances
relied upon by the prosecution must be firmly established, for such
circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the
guilt of the accused, and the chain so formed must be so complete
that it leaves no reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with
the innocence of the accused. If any one of the links in the chain is
found to be missing or doubtful, the entire prosecution case
necessarily fails.

-43-
Crl. Appeal No.372 of 2018
66. In the present case, the prosecution has relied principally upon four
circumstances, namely, (i) the alleged last seen circumstances; (ii)
the recoveries effected during investigation; (iii) the medial and
D.N.A. evidence and (iv) the conduct of the appellant.
67. As already discussed, the last seen circumstances rest solely upon
the testimony of Pradeep Kumar (P.W.2), who is an interested
witness. His testimony suffers from material contradiction and
lacks independent corroboration, particularly when Manoj Kumar
(P.W.3), the alleged last seen witness, has not supported the
prosecution. Consequently, the first and the most vital link and the
chain remains unproved.
68. Similarly, the recoveries relied upon by the prosecution fail to
inspire confidence. The material witnesses to the recovery either
turned hostile or were withheld without explanation. The
prosecution failed to establish any satisfactory nexus between the
recovered mobile phone and appellant- Neerajpal. Likewise, the
recovery of the driving licence and the subsequent recovery of the
clothes do not stand proved beyond reasonable doubt so as to
constitute incriminating circumstances against the appellant.
69. The medical evidence undoubtedly establishes that the deceased
was subjected to forcible sexual assault and homicidal death by
strangulation. However, the medical evidence merely proves the
corpus delicti and the nature of the offence; it does not identify the
offenders. Likewise, although the prosecution has relied upon the

-44-
Crl. Appeal No.372 of 2018
D.N.A. evidence, the deficiencies noticed in providing the chain of
custody and absence of reliable corroborative circumstance render
it untenable to treat the forensic evidence as conclusively proving
the appellant’s involvement.
70. Apart from the aforesaid circumstances, the prosecution has failed
to establish any motive of such a compelling nature as would lend
assurance to the prosecution story. No eye-witness to the
occurrence has been produced. The Investigating Officer himself
admitted that during investigation, no eye-witness could be found
and even the exact place and time of occurrence could not be
ascertained. These admissions further weaken the prosecution case.
Another circumstance which cannot be overlooked is that the
prosecution evidence suffers from material infirmities in the
investigation itself, including the unexplained delay in forwarding
the first information report to the Magistrate, hostile recovery
witnesses, failure to examine a material independent witness and
failure to establish an important link in the chain of circumstances.
Though every defect in investigation may not necessarily enure to
the benefit of the accused, where the prosecution case itself rests
exclusively upon circumstantial evidence, such omissions assume
considerable significance. Thus, when the entire evidence is
appreciated as a whole, it becomes evident that the prosecution has
failed to establish a continuous and unbroken chain of

-45-
Crl. Appeal No.372 of 2018
circumstances leading only to the hypothesis of the guilt of the
appellant.
71. On the contrary, the evidence leaves room for reasonable doubt and
does not exclude every hypothesis consistent with innocence. In
the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Trial Court fell
into error in evaluating such circumstances in isolation and in
treating suspicion as a substitute for proof. The cardinal principle
that suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of legal proof
appears to have been overlooked while recording the conviction.
72. Accordingly, we hold that the incriminating effect of the
circumstances proved by the prosecution falls short of the standard
required for recording conviction in the criminal trial. The
prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt,
and the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt. The conviction
and sentence recorded by the learned Trial Court, therefore, cannot
be sustained.
73. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the
case, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has failed
to discharge its burden of proving the guilt of the appellant
beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution has also failed to ensure
strict compliance with the mandatory safeguards governing the
collection, preservation, transportation and documentation of the
D.N.A. samples, thereby compromising the integrity of the chain of
custody. In a case resting substantially on scientific evidence, such

-46-
Crl. Appeal No.372 of 2018
lapses strike at the very root of the prosecution case and cannot be
treated as mere procedural irregularities. The deficiencies cannot
be permitted to be cured at the appellate stage, particularly when
such a course would occasion serious prejudice to the appellant,
who has already undergone approximately fourteen years of
incarceration. In these circumstances, this Court is left with no
option but to extend the benefit of doubt to the appellant.
74. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence of the appellant,
Neerajpal, cannot be sustained, hence the judgment and order dated
16.11.2017, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Fast
Track Court, Hardoi passed in S.T. No.236 of 2012, arising out of
Case Crime No.958 of 2011, under Sections 302, 376 and 201
I.P.C., Police Station- Pihani, District- Hardoi are hereby set aside.
The appellant is acquitted of all the charges by extending to him the
benefit of doubt. The instant appeal is, accordingly, allowed.
75. The accused-appellant, namely, Neerajpal would be released
forthwith unless he is wanted in any other case, subject to
compliance of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The amount of fine, if
deposited, shall be refunded to the accused.
76. Trial court record along with copy of this judgment and order be
transmitted to the court concerned forthwith.
77. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Jail Authorities concerned
and the court concerned for compliance.

-47-
Crl. Appeal No.372 of 2018
78. Since the issues noticed in the present case are not confined to the
facts of this case alone and have wider ramifications for the conduct
of criminal investigations and prosecutions involving scientific
evidence, we deem it appropriate to direct that a copy of this
judgment be forwarded to the Director General of Prosecution,
Uttar Pradesh, who shall issue appropriate administrative
instructions/circulars to all Public Prosecutors and prosecuting
officers in the State to ensure strict compliance with the
observations and guidelines contained herein.
79. A copy of this judgment shall also be forwarded to the Director
General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, and to the Director, Forensic
Science Laboratory, Uttar Pradesh, for ensuring strict adherence to
the chain of custody requirements and the directions issued by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Attavellai @ Devakar (supra).
80. The Senior Registrar of this Court is requested to communicate a
copy of this judgment to the aforesaid authorities for information
and necessary compliance.
81. Before parting with the matter, we place on record our appreciation
for the valuable assistance rendered by Ms. Manisha Trivedi,
learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Sri S.P. Singh, learned
A.G.A. and Mr. Saurabh Singh, Research Associate
.

(Rajeev Bharti, J.) (Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J)
Order Date:- 23.07.2026
Anand
Digitally signed by :-
ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench