About the Contributor:
Gurmeet Singh Jaggi | Legal Contract Lifecycle Management Professional
A specialist in the architecture of complex commercial frameworks, Gurmeet Singh Jaggi brings over five years of post-qualification expertise to the field of Legal Contract Lifecycle Management. His practice is centred on the meticulous drafting and negotiation of instruments that define modern commerce, with a particular emphasis on SaaS, information technology, IP, and procurement.
In an era where legal precision is increasingly integrated with technology, Gurmeet is a seasoned hand in the deployment of digital systems to oversee the entire contractual journey. He holds deep-seated proficiency in industry-standard platforms, including Icertis, DocuSign CLM, Coupa, and Ariba, ensuring that legal operations are as efficient as they are robust.
Guided by a commitment to clarity and strategic foresight, Gurmeet offers a perspective shaped by both technical rigour and a disciplined approach to the law. For a more comprehensive look at his work and to engage with his latest professional updates, you may connect with him via the link below.
Connect on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/g-s-jaggi/
The Allahabad High Court has set aside the conviction of two accused persons in a 1992 kidnapping and murder case, holding that the prosecution failed to prove a complete chain of circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court held that the “last seen together” theory, in the facts of the case, was legally insufficient due to a significant time gap between the alleged last sighting of the deceased with the accused and the recovery of the dead body.
A Division Bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay delivered the judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 4445 of 2005, arising out of Sessions Trial No. 66 of 1995, and overturned the trial court’s judgment dated 24 September 2005.
Case Background
According to the prosecution, Chandrapal @ Chandraprakash was allegedly taken away on the morning of 07 February 1992 from Saharanpur. It was alleged that he was kidnapped with the intention to kill and was later murdered near Ballabhgarh Railway Station, District Faridabad. The trial court had convicted Anoop Singh under Section 364 IPC and Section 302/34 IPC, sentencing him to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 364 and life imprisonment under Section 302/34. The other accused, including Ram Kumar, Vinod and Balak Ram, were convicted under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment.
During the pendency of the appeal, two accused persons, Balak Ram and Vinod, died, resulting in abatement of proceedings against them. The appeal survived only for Anoop Singh and Ram Kumar, who were in custody at the time of the High Court’s decision.
Prosecution Case And Evidence
Since there was no eyewitness account, the prosecution case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence.
The prosecution relied mainly on the claim that the deceased left home with the accused, alleged sightings of the deceased with the accused at public places, a slip (parcha) allegedly written by one of the accused, recovery of the dead body near railway tracks at Ballabhgarh, and a motive linked to money allegedly paid by the deceased for securing employment. The prosecution relied on the testimony of the deceased’s wife (PW1) and brother (PW2) to show that the deceased left with the accused. It also relied on witnesses who claimed to have seen the deceased with the accused at Rampur Bus Stand and later at Delhi Railway Station. The motive projected by the prosecution was that the deceased had paid Rs. 7,500 to the accused for arranging employment, and that the accused wished to avoid returning the money.
Hon’ble High Court on Circumstantial Evidence
The High Court reiterated that in cases based entirely on circumstantial evidence, each circumstance must be firmly established, and the chain must be so complete that it excludes every hypothesis except guilt. The Court noted that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof, and where two views are possible, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
Slip Not Proved, Motive Doubtful
The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish with reliability that the slip relied upon by it was in the handwriting of the accused. In the absence of dependable proof regarding authorship, the slip could not be treated as a strong link in the chain.
The Court also found the motive to be doubtful. It submitted contradictions regarding the amount allegedly paid, including a reference to Rs. 7,000 in the statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC. The Bench also observed that the motive, as projected, was weak and could not become a decisive circumstance in a case resting solely on circumstantial evidence.
Last Seen Theory Rejected Due To Time Gap
The central issue before the Court was whether the “last seen together” evidence was sufficient to sustain conviction. The High Court reiterated that the last seen theory becomes relevant only where the time gap between the accused and the deceased being last seen together and the discovery of death is so small that the possibility of third-party involvement becomes unlikely.
In the present case, the deceased was allegedly last seen with the accused at about 6:00 PM on 07 February 1992 at Delhi Railway Station.
The dead body was recovered only on 09 February 1992 around noon near the railway line at Ballabhgarh. The post-mortem doctor stated that death could have occurred at any time on 09 February 1992. He also stated that the injuries could have been caused by falling from a moving train and that the possibility of a railway accident could not be ruled out.In view of the time gap and the medical evidence, the Bench held that the last seen evidence did not meet the legal requirement of close proximity of time and place. The Court held that the gap was significant and not narrow enough to exclude the possibility of intervention by another person.
Final Decision
Holding that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the Allahabad High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the trial court’s judgment, and acquitted Anoop Singh and Ram Kumar of all charges.
Case: Balak Ram And Others vs State of U.P.
Date of Order: 06.02.2026
See Order: Balak Ram And Others vs State of U.P.
