A girl who vanished in 2002, a life sentence in 2013, and an acquittal in 2026

Justices Abdul Moin and Pramod Kumar Srivastava hold that the circumstances relied on by the prosecution do not form a complete chain, call the trial court's findings perverse, and order the release of a man who has been in jail throughout.

A girl of about sixteen or seventeen left home in Lucknow on the afternoon of 14 December 2002 and did not come back. Her mother searched for her, reported her missing three days later, and was eventually told by her other daughters — who had kept it from her out of fear — that the girl had last been seen walking down the lane with a man who worked as a driver in a household nearby. In 2013 that man was convicted of kidnapping, abduction and murder and sentenced to life. On 9 October 2026 a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court acquitted him, holding the chain of circumstances incomplete and the trial court's reasoning unable to withstand scrutiny.

A case built on circumstances

The complaint went first to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow. The mother stated that her daughter had gone missing on 14 December 2002 at about 4 p.m.; that she had searched extensively; and that she reported the disappearance to the Inspector-in-charge on 17 December. She learnt afterwards from her daughters that the girl had last been seen in the lane with the first appellant, a driver employed in a local household. When she went to that house to inquire she was consoled, and on her account pressure was later mounted on her to drop the matter.

Crime No. 34 of 2003 was registered at Police Station Chowk under Sections 363, 366, 368, 302 and 120-B of the Penal Code. The trial, Sessions Trial No. 1020 of 2003, ended before the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 15, Lucknow on 27 September 2013. The first appellant was convicted under Section 363 and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs 2,000; under Section 366 to seven years with a fine of Rs 4,000; and under Section 302 to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs 10,000. The second appellant was convicted under Sections 366 and 368 and sentenced to seven years with a fine of Rs 4,000. Both appealed under Section 374(2) of the Code, and the appeals were heard together.

The handwriting, and a section that did not exist yet

One contested circumstance was a set of specimen writings taken from an accused in 2003, and the judgment deals with it by noticing a problem of dates.

Section 311-A of the Code, which expressly empowers a Magistrate to direct a person to give specimen signatures or handwriting, was inserted with effect from 23 June 2006 — three years after these specimens were obtained. “Therefore, the legality of the collection of the specimen writings in the present case cannot be tested simply by applying Section 311-A Cr.P.C. retrospectively.”

What governs the period before that provision came in was taken from Santosh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 19 SCC 321, which held that although there was then no specific provision prescribing the procedure, there was also no statutory provision expressly prohibiting the investigating agency from collecting a specimen of handwriting or signatures to obtain an expert opinion. That decision in turn draws on Sukhvinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 5 SCC 152, where what mattered was that no inquiry or trial was pending when the specimens were taken, that the prosecution did not disclose at what stage the accused was produced, and that the specimens were obtained under the direction of an Executive Magistrate rather than of the court seized of the matter.

Why the chain did not close

There was no eyewitness to anything but a girl walking in a lane. A conviction on that footing stands or falls on whether the circumstances proved form a complete chain, pointing unerringly to guilt and excluding every other hypothesis — and the Bench held they did not.

“After careful consideration, we are unable to sustain the conclusion of the learned trial court that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution constitute a complete chain pointing unerringly towards the guilt of the appellants.” The trial court's reasoning, “insofar as it treats the aforesaid circumstances as sufficient to bridge the material gaps in the prosecution case, does not withstand scrutiny in the light of the evidence discussed hereinabove”.

The characterisation that follows is the strongest a High Court gives: “Thus, the findings given by the trial court are perverse and not in consonance with evidence on record and the law laid down. The reasons given by the trial court are not convincing and clinching and require the interference of this court.” The appellants were entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt.

Order

Both appeals were allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence of 27 September 2013 was set aside so far as these two appellants are concerned. The first appellant was acquitted of the charges under Sections 363, 366 and 302 and the second of those under Sections 366 and 368.

The first appellant, who was in jail in this case, was directed to be released forthwith unless his detention was required in some other case. The second was on bail and need not surrender; his bail bonds were cancelled and sureties discharged, subject to compliance with Section 437-A of the Code. A certified copy of the judgment and the lower court record were directed to be transmitted to the trial court forthwith.

In a closing paragraph the Bench recorded the assistance rendered by the Research Associate attached to the court — a small courtesy, and a reminder of how much reading a twenty-four-year-old circumstantial case takes to undo.

Nobody has been held responsible for the girl's disappearance. The trial took eleven years to reach a verdict and the appeal another thirteen to set it aside, and the man who served all of it walks out with an acquittal rather than an answer.