27/04/2026
1. Case Details
Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Case Title: Kamal Prasad vs State of U.P.
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 694 of 2016
Bench: Hon’ble Rajnish Kumar, J. & Hon’ble Zafeer Ahmad, J.
Trial Court Judgment:
Conviction by Trial Court: Section 302 IPC (Life Imprisonment + Fine ₹10,000)
2. Facts of the Case
The prosecution case arose from an incident dated 19.04.2012 wherein the accused-appellant allegedly assaulted his wife, Indravati, with an axe inside their house, resulting in her death. The FIR was lodged by the son of the deceased, who stated that upon hearing cries, he rushed to the house and saw the accused fleeing while his mother was found dead inside.
The investigation led to recovery of a blood-stained axe from the place of occurrence, and after completion of investigation, a charge sheet under Section 302 IPC was filed. The trial court convicted the accused for murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The accused denied the allegations, claiming false implication due to enmity and property disputes.
3. Submissions by Counsel for the Appellant
Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the conviction was unsustainable as the prosecution case suffered from material contradictions between the FIR and the testimonies of key witnesses. It was argued that neither of the witnesses had actually seen the assault, making the case purely circumstantial, and the chain of circumstances was incomplete.
It was further submitted that the medical evidence did not fully corroborate the prosecution story, thereby creating doubt. The witnesses were interested and related, and no independent corroboration was available. It was also argued that important links were missing, making false implication a plausible possibility. On these grounds, acquittal on benefit of doubt was sought.
4. Submissions by Counsel for the State
The learned A.G.A. supported the trial court judgment and argued that the prosecution had successfully proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. It was contended that the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 were natural, consistent and trustworthy, and minor discrepancies did not affect the core of the case.
It was further submitted that the ocular evidence was corroborated by medical evidence and recovery of the weapon. The conduct of the accused in fleeing from the spot and failing to explain circumstances under Section 313 Cr.P.C. constituted strong incriminating evidence. The prosecution had established a complete chain of circumstances pointing towards guilt, and hence the appeal deserved dismissal.
5. Order of the Court
The Hon’ble High Court upheld the finding that the accused was responsible for causing the death of the deceased based on a complete chain of circumstantial evidence, including presence at the scene, quarrel, recovery of weapon, and subsequent conduct.
However, the Court observed that the incident occurred in the course of a sudden quarrel without premeditation, and the prosecution failed to establish intention to cause death. Accordingly, the conviction under Section 302 IPC was altered to Section 304 Part II IPC.
Considering that the accused had already undergone more than 15 years of incarceration, exceeding the maximum punishment under Section 304 Part II IPC, the Court held the period already undergone as sufficient sentence. The appeal was partly allowed, and the accused was directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
6. Case Laws Relied Upon
M.C. Ali vs State of Kerala (2010) 4 SCC 573
State of U.P. vs Anil Singh (1988) 3 SCC 686
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State of Maharashtra
Pundalik vs State of Maharashtra
Surinder Kumar vs UT Chandigarh
Rambir vs State (NCT Delhi)
Kesar Singh vs State of Haryana
