CDR alone cannot prove two people were together at a crime scene, Allahabad High Court holds while acquitting murder accused

Naeem was found dead near Pawan Brick Kiln, Malikpur Road, Shikohabad, on 1 January 2023, with severe crushing injuries to his face.

His sister, Sayra Khatoon, lodged an FIR on 4 January 2023 against unknown persons under Section 302 IPC.

The prosecution later alleged that Naeem’s wife, Hasnera @ Shabana, had an illicit relationship with Shahrukh and that both had murdered Naeem by striking him with a brick.

The Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Firozabad, convicted both appellants under Sections 302/120-B IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment with a fine of ₹30,000 each on 14 November 2025.

Whether the prosecution established a complete and conclusive chain of circumstantial evidence proving that the appellants, and no one else, committed Naeem’s murder?

Whether the alleged illicit relationship constituted a sufficiently proved motive for the murder?

Whether the alleged confessions made by the appellants to the Investigating Officer were admissible and could be relied upon?

Whether the call-detail records and mobile-location evidence established the appellants’ presence together with the deceased at the place of occurrence?

Whether the recovery of the bloodstained brick from the place of occurrence corroborated the prosecution case in accordance with law?

The Court applied Sections 302 and 120-B IPC concerning murder and criminal conspiracy, respectively, and Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which bars proof of a confession made by an accused while in police custody unless made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate.

For circumstantial evidence, the Court relied on Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622, requiring that every incriminating circumstance be fully established, consistent only with the accused’s guilt, conclusive in nature, exclusive of reasonable alternative hypotheses, and form a complete chain.

The Court also relied on Joseph v. State of Kerala, Padala Veera Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, C. Chenga Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, and State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, reiterating that where circumstantial evidence permits two reasonable inferences, the one favourable to the accused must be adopted.

The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the alleged illicit relationship because PW-1 and PW-3 had no personal knowledge of it, lived in a different district, had never lodged any complaint regarding it, and no independent witness was examined; therefore, the alleged motive remained unproved.

The alleged confessions to the Investigating Officer were inadmissible under Section 26 of the Evidence Act.

The recovery of the brick from the place of occurrence, rather than from the possession or pointing out of either appellant, did not constitute legally incriminating recovery evidence.

The Court further held that call-detail records could at most show communication or possible coverage by the same mobile tower; they did not conclusively establish that the appellants were physically present together at the crime scene, particularly in the absence of reliable corroborative evidence.

Since these circumstances were either unproved or legally insufficient, the chain of evidence was incomplete and did not exclude the reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

The conviction and sentence dated 14 November 2025 were set aside, and Shahrukh and Hasnera @ Shabana were acquitted by extending to them the benefit of doubt.

As both appellants were in custody, the Court directed that they be released forthwith unless required in any other case, and ordered transmission of the judgment and trial record to the court below for compliance.