Murder convictions overturned after Allahabad High Court finds police “botched up” investigation and tampered with evidence

On 8 February 2011 at approximately 11:45 p.m., Shabbir was allegedly attacked and stabbed outside the ALM Meat Factory, Harora, while returning with his nephew Jamal after dropping his brother at Saharanpur. Shabbir was taken to the hospital, where he died.

Kallu lodged the FIR at 1:05 a.m. on 9 February 2011; the FIR did not name any accused but stated that two assailants had been seen in electricity and torch light and could be recognised if produced.

On 14 February 2011, the police apprehended Altaf, Sanjeev Kumar and another person near an under-construction powerhouse. A SIM card was allegedly recovered from Altaf and a mobile phone from Sanjeev.

Altaf purportedly disclosed that he and the others had killed a labourer to create terror after the factory owner refused their extortion demand of Rs.20 lakhs. A knife was thereafter recovered from a mango grove on the basis of the alleged disclosure.

The post-mortem attributed Shabbir’s death to shock and haemorrhage caused by ante-mortem injuries. Altaf and Sanjeev were charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, while Altaf was additionally charged under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act.

The trial court convicted both appellants under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.50,000 each; Altaf was additionally convicted under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act.

At trial, PW-2 Mohd. Asif, PW-4 Sahabuddin and PW-5 Jamal identified Altaf and Sanjeev as the assailants.

However, the FIR contained no names, several statements under Section 161 CrPC were recorded after delays of two or more days, and the investigating officer admitted that no test identification parade, voice sampling or voice comparison had been conducted.

The High Court heard both appeals together.

Whether the appellants could be convicted on the basis of their identification for the first time in court when they were not named in the FIR and no test identification parade had been conducted.

Whether the delayed recording of the alleged eyewitnesses’ statements under Section 161 CrPC, together with material omissions and contradictions, rendered their testimony unreliable.

Whether the alleged recovery of the knife, recovery of SIM/mobile devices and purported extortion-call evidence sufficiently corroborated the prosecution case.

Whether the prosecution had proved the charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and, against Altaf, Section 4/25 of the Arms Act beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court applied Section 302 IPC concerning punishment for murder and Section 34 IPC concerning acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention, along with Section 4/25 of the Arms Act concerning possession of a prohibited arm.

It relied on Harbeer Singh v. Sheesh Pal, (2016) 16 SCC 418, for the principle that unexplained and significant delay in recording eyewitness statements may cast serious doubt on their credibility.

Kanan v. State of Kerala, (1979) 3 SCC 319, and Rameshwar Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, (1971) 2 SCC 715, for the principle that identification for the first time in court is inherently weak where the accused were previously unknown and no test identification parade preceded the dock identification.

Amrik Singh v. State of Punjab, (2022) 9 SCC 402, for the proposition that conviction should not safely rest solely on such uncorroborated first-time identification.

The Court also considered the principle that voice identification requires reliable voice sampling and comparison, and that recovery evidence must be proved through credible and untampered investigation.

The High Court found that the FIR, lodged shortly after the incident, did not name either appellant, although it stated that the assailants could be recognised.

The alleged eyewitnesses’ statements were recorded only after two or more days, and the witnesses admitted that material facts asserted in court—such as the presence of a knife, Sanjeev’s act of restraining the deceased, the source of light and the manner of recognition—were absent from their police statements.

In these circumstances, the absence of a test identification parade materially weakened the subsequent in-court identification, particularly because the investigating officer admitted that no identification proceedings had been conducted.

The Court further noted that the investigation did not reliably corroborate the eyewitness account.

The factory owner’s evidence regarding threatening calls and voice recordings was unsupported by any voice sample or forensic comparison.

The alleged knife recovery was also treated as doubtful because the prosecution claimed that the knife had been washed before burial, yet it was later sent for forensic examination and allegedly tested positive for blood, albeit disintegrated blood.

This inconsistency led the Court to regard the recovery and handling of the weapon as indicative of substantial evidentiary tampering.

The SIM cards and mobile devices were not properly produced or exhibited, further undermining the electronic and circumstantial evidence.

Taken cumulatively, these defects created reasonable doubt and persuaded the Court that the investigation had introduced the appellants’ names after the event rather than reliably identifying the actual offenders.

It held that the first-time in-court identification, delayed and materially inconsistent eyewitness statements, doubtful weapon recovery, and unproved voice and mobile-phone evidence were insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The appeals were allowed; the judgment and order dated 30 March 2016 were quashed; and Altaf and Sanjeev were acquitted of all charges.

Altaf was directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case, while Sanjeev’s bail bonds were discharged and he was not required to surrender.

The Amicus Curiae was awarded Rs.25,000 by the High Court Legal Services Authority.