Allahabad HC Acquits Sunil Kumar After 37 Years, Sets Aside Life Sentence in 1986 Hardoi Murder Case
The Lucknow Bench found the last-seen evidence unreliable, a key witness withheld, and the chain of circumstances incomplete against the sole surviving appellant.
A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, comprising Justice Rajnish Kumar and Justice Babita Rani, on 27 May 2026 set aside the life sentence imposed on Sunil Kumar by the Sessions Judge, Hardoi, in 1989 for the murder of 17-year-old Deepak Kumar. The court found that the prosecution's case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, that the chain of circumstances was incomplete, and that the sole independent last-seen witness — Sushil Kumar Singh — had been deliberately withheld. In a connected appeal, the bench also set aside the forfeiture of a Rajdoot motorcycle belonging to Puttoo Lal Trivedi, who had no involvement in the crime, holding that the vehicle should have been returned to its owner once the trial concluded.
The 1986 Murder and the Sessions Court Conviction
On the evening of 2 November 1986, the day after Deepawali, Deepak Kumar — son of complainant Pran Nath Shukla and a resident of Mohalla Dilerganj, Kasba Shahabad, District Hardoi — was last seen riding pillion on a Rajdoot motorcycle with Laxmi Kant alias Pappu, son of Natthu Lal Mishra, in whose house Deepak ran an electrical goods shop. The following morning, a dead body was found near Jamaur culvert in Shahjahanpur district. The body was identified on 4 November 1986 by Pran Nath Shukla as his son Deepak. The post-mortem, conducted by Dr. R.S. Malviya at Sadar Hospital, Shahjahanpur, recorded firearm wounds to the left thigh and scrotum, with metallic pieces and wads recovered from the body. The probable time of death was placed at approximately 9:00 p.m. on 2 November 1986.
The motive alleged by the prosecution was a rumoured illicit relationship between Deepak and Usha Devi, the married sister of Laxmi Kant, who taught at Modern Montessori School, Shahabad. Love letters were placed on record as material exhibits. A check FIR was registered on 3 November 1986 under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Shahabad. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed under Sections 364, 302 and 120-B IPC against Laxmi Kant alias Pappu, Srikant, Natthu Lal and Sunil Kumar. The case was committed to the Sessions Court and registered as Sessions Trial No. 209 of 1987.
The Sessions Judge, Hardoi, by judgment dated 4 March 1989, acquitted Natthu Lal and Srikant but convicted Laxmi Kant alias Pappu and Sunil Kumar under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, sentencing each to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, to be paid to the father of the deceased. The court also directed that the Rajdoot motorcycle bearing registration No. USW 8137, found in the custody of Sunil Kumar's aunt, be forfeited in favour of the State.
Two appeals followed. Criminal Appeal No. 206 of 1989 was filed by Laxmi Kant alias Pappu and Sunil Kumar under Section 374(2) CrPC. Criminal Appeal No. 336 of 1989 was filed by Puttoo Lal Trivedi, father-in-law of Laxmi Kant and owner of the motorcycle, under Section 454 CrPC, challenging the forfeiture order. During the pendency of Appeal No. 336 of 1989, this court by order dated 26 April 1989 suspended the forfeiture and directed the motorcycle to be released to Trivedi on sufficient security, which he obtained. During the pendency of Appeal No. 206 of 1989, Laxmi Kant alias Pappu died, and his appeal stood abated by order dated 15 February 2024 of a co-ordinate bench. The appeal thus survived only for Sunil Kumar.
Why the Last-Seen Evidence Did Not Hold
The prosecution's case against Sunil Kumar rested on circumstantial evidence. The primary circumstance was the last-seen testimony of P.W.1, Rajni Kant, who stated that on the evening of 2 November 1986 he and Sushil Kumar Singh had seen Deepak Kumar going towards Shahjahanpur on the Rajdoot motorcycle with Laxmi Kant alias Pappu. The bench examined this testimony carefully and found several reasons to doubt it.
Sushil Kumar Singh, described by P.W.1 himself as a friend of Deepak who had actually stopped and spoken to the deceased, was never examined by the prosecution. The bench held that Sushil Kumar was a material witness who had been withheld. P.W.1 had also admitted in cross-examination that it was Sushil, not he, who had stopped the motorcycle and spoken to Deepak. The bench observed that P.W.1 and P.W.2 (the complainant, Pran Nath Shukla) had worked in the same tehsil office, with P.W.1 likely subordinate to P.W.2, which cast doubt on the independence of P.W.1's testimony.
The bench also noted an internal inconsistency regarding the motorcycle number. P.W.1 claimed in court to have noted the number USW 8137, yet the Investigating Officer P.W.10 admitted that P.W.1 had not told him the number during investigation. P.W.2 himself deposed that neither P.W.1 nor Sushil Kumar Singh had told him the number when they met him the next morning. The bench found that the number had not been communicated to the Investigating Officer by P.W.1, which undermined the reliability of his in-court deposition on this point.
The Sessions Court had relied on the occasion of the Deepawali festival to explain why P.W.1 and Sushil Kumar Singh were present in the area. The bench found this reasoning self-contradictory: if the Deepawali festival was the reason for their presence, it should equally have meant that others were out in the Mohalla that evening. Yet P.W.1 had deposed that no one else had passed by when they saw Deepak and Laxmi Kant. The bench found this absence of any other person in a busy Mohalla on Deepawali evening to be a further reason for doubt.
P.W.4, Smt. Krishna Kumari, sister of the complainant, deposed that she had seen Laxmi Kant alias Pappu, Deepak Kumar and Sunil Kumar going on a motorcycle towards Shahjahanpur at about 7:30–8:00 p.m. on 2 November 1986. However, she did not give the number or make of the motorcycle. The bench noted her relationship to the complainant in assessing her evidence.
The prosecution also relied on a statement of P.W.5, Chhotey, a resident of village Jamaur, who had been declared hostile in court. His statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC (proved as Ext. Ka-22) contained an account in which the deceased Deepak had allegedly told him that Pappu and Sunil Mishra had brought him there by deception and fired on him. The State argued this should be treated as a dying declaration, relying on Pakala Narayana Swami v. Emperor, (1939) 26 AIR PC 47. The bench, however, noted that P.W.5 had turned hostile and did not accept this statement as sufficient proof against Sunil Kumar in the absence of a complete chain of circumstances.
The bench also examined the recovery of the motorcycle. It was found on 5 November 1986 at the house of Sunil Kumar's aunt at Kamalnayanpur, where she stated that Sunil Kumar had left it in the night with a friend. The recovery memo was proved as Ext. Ka-18 by the Investigating Officer. The bench found that the witness to the recovery — the aunt — had not been examined in court, which weakened the evidentiary value of the recovery.
The Forfeiture of the Motorcycle
Criminal Appeal No. 336 of 1989 raised a distinct question: whether the Rajdoot motorcycle bearing registration No. USW 8137, belonging to Puttoo Lal Trivedi, could be forfeited in favour of the State when Trivedi was neither an accused nor a witness in the case.
The bench referred to the scheme of Section 451 and Section 452 CrPC, which provide for interim custody and disposal of property at the conclusion of trial respectively. It noted that under these provisions, confiscation is to be determined at an evidential standard of beyond reasonable doubt and is dependent on the result of the criminal trial. The bench observed that the Sessions Court had ordered forfeiture solely on the ground that the motorcycle was used in the crime, without examining the witness to the recovery and without recording any reason why the vehicle could not be returned to its owner once the trial concluded.
The bench held that once the trial concluded, unless circumstances specifically demanded otherwise, the vehicle should have been released in favour of the owner — particularly when the owner was not involved in the crime in any manner. Since the motorcycle had already been in Trivedi's custody pursuant to the interim order of 26 April 1989, the bench directed that it shall stand released in his favour and discharged the sureties furnished under that interim order.
Order
Criminal Appeal No. 206 of 1989 was allowed. The judgment and order dated 4 March 1989 passed by the Sessions Judge, Hardoi, against Sunil Kumar was set aside. Sunil Kumar was acquitted. He was on bail at the time of the judgment and was directed not to surrender. His bail bonds were cancelled and sureties discharged. He was directed to file a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned within fifteen days, in compliance with Section 437-A CrPC.
Criminal Appeal No. 336 of 1989 was also allowed. The forfeiture order in respect of Rajdoot motorcycle bearing registration No. USW 8137 was set aside. The motorcycle, already in the custody of Puttoo Lal Trivedi under the interim order of 26 April 1989, was directed to stand released in his favour. The court directed that a copy of the order along with the trial court's record be transmitted to the court concerned within one week.