On October 26, 2018, the Allahabad High Court delivered a significant ruling regarding the conviction of Lav Kumar Kanhiya, who faced serious charges stemming from two FIRs registered in July 2011. These FIRs alleged offenses under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Arms Act, following the kidnapping and subsequent murder of Vivek Goyal, also known as Vicky.

The case began on July 4, 2011, when Vivek Goyal went missing. A kidnapping report led to the registration of FIR No. 540/2011 the next day, detailing a ransom demand of ?50 lakh made via a call to Ranjana Gupta, who, notably, was not examined during the trial.

Shortly thereafter, Monu Saxena, a suspect in the case, was arrested on July 6, but tragically died in police custody the following day. His death raised concerns about police conduct, particularly as he reportedly sustained injuries while in custody.

Initial investigations revealed Lav Kumar’s connection to the case through call detail records (CDRs), which indicated communication between him and the deceased. However, significant flaws in the investigation process were apparent. The first investigating officer, J.N. Asthana, admitted to knowing about Lav Kumar but failed to pursue inquiries about him, raising questions about the thoroughness of the investigation.

Arun Kumar Sharma, a later investigator, claimed to have discovered Vivek Goyal’s decomposed body at the direction of Lav Kumar after his arrest. However, discrepancies regarding the timeline and circumstances of this recovery raised doubts. The body was found in a state of advanced decomposition, leading to questions about how the smell of decay could have gone unnoticed in a residential area.

During the trial, testimonies and evidence presented revealed inconsistencies. For instance, the panchanama documenting the recovery of the body was prepared hours after the alleged discovery, casting doubt on the integrity of the evidence. The prosecution's reliance on CDRs was undermined by the failure to produce necessary certificates under the Indian Evidence Act, and the CDRs only indicated occasional communications without definitive links to the crimes.

Dinesh Kumar Goyal, the father of the deceased, acknowledged Lav Kumar’s prior employment at his shop and his acquaintance with Vivek. However, he confirmed that Lav Kumar did not make the ransom call, further weakening the prosecution's case. Moreover, the recovery of a knife, allegedly linked to the crime, occurred 13-14 days post-arrest, failing to establish a solid connection to Lav Kumar.

After careful consideration, the court found substantial gaps in the prosecution's evidence, stating that it did not convincingly establish Lav Kumar's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the High Court set aside the previous judgment, acquitting Lav Kumar of all charges, including those under the IPC and the Arms Act.

This ruling highlights critical issues within the criminal justice system, particularly regarding the handling of evidence and the responsibilities of law enforcement in safeguarding individual rights. As the case illustrates, the presumption of innocence remains paramount in judicial proceedings, and the burden of proof lies squarely on the prosecution.