Back
2026 Supreme(SC) 779
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Deo Prasad And Anr. – Appellants
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No(S). 239 of 2013 With Criminal Appeal No(S). 237 of 2013, Criminal Appeal No(S). 238 of 2013, Criminal Appeal No(S). 236 of 2013
Decided On : 15-07-2026
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Evidence and Procedure
Act Referred
Headnote
Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted for offenses involving rioting and murder. The prosecution alleged that the incident occurred in the afternoon, reported the same evening, and eye-witnesses observed the entire assault. The defence contended that the entire prosecution story was an ex-post-facto development: the FIR had been ante-timed, the crime scene was left unsecured by authorities, and the post-mortem was delayed by nearly forty-eight hours, indicating that the incident actually occurred under different circumstances.
Findings of Court:
The court observed glaring inconsistencies in the prosecution's version, particularly the lack of any measures to preserve the deceased's body overnight despite station proximity, the unexplained delay in conducting the inquest, and the most critical discrepancy: the FIR, though allegedly registered on the day of the incident, reached the jurisdictional magistrate only two days later. The cumulative effect of these anomalies confirmed that the FIR was a post-investigation document.
Issues: The main issues were whether the FIR was recorded in a spontaneous and timely manner, whether the testimony of the alleged eye-witnesses was credible, and whether the documented procedural irregularities and delays were fatal to the prosecution's case.
Ratio Decidendi: When credible evidence suggests that the registration of the FIR was ante-dated and the sequence of investigation was manipulated, the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused. The failure to prove the genesis and timing of the incident through reliable, contemporaneous evidence renders the prosecution’s entire case unsustainable.
Result: Appeals allowed; convictions and sentences set aside; accused acquitted.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Jabar Singh, Adv. Mr. Sachin Sharma, Adv. Mr. Subodh Kumar, Adv. M/s V. Maheshwari & Co., AOR Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay, AOR Mr. Gaurav Dhingra, AOR Mr. Shashank Singh, Adv. Ms. Bhukya Reshma Bai, Adv. Mr. Randhir Kumar Ojha, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Namit Saxena, AOR
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history and status of appeals. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. summary of prosecution case and trial outcomes. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 3. summary of arguments by appellants and respondent-state. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. comprehensive evaluation of witness and expert testimonies. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 5. analysis of prosecution inconsistencies and impact of delayed fir. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59) |
| 6. final adjudication, acquittal, and conclusion of order. (Para 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65) |
JUDGMENT :
Mehta, J.
1. Heard.
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
2. The appellants herein,1[Appellant-Accused No. 1 (Raj Kishore- Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 237 of 2013); Appellant-Accused No. 2 (Hira Lal- Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 238 of 2013); Appellant-Accused No. 3 (Raj Bux-Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 236 of 2013); Appellant-Accused No. 5 (Deo Prasad- Appellant No. 1 in Criminal Appeal No. 239 of 2013); and Appellant-Accused No. 6 (Subedar- Appellant No. 2 in Criminal Appeal No. 239 of 2013). Collectively, they are being referred to as “accused-appellants”.] along with one Ram Dhani,2[Died during the pendency of appeal before the High Court.] were tried by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Gonda,3[Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘trial Court’.], in Sessions Trial No. 242 of 1978 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148 and 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.,4[For short, ‘IPC’.] Vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 3rd June, 1981, the trial Court convicted the appellant-Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 148 and 302 read with 149 of IPC, and Ram Dhani, appellant-Accused Nos. 5 and 6 for the offences punishable under Sections 147 and 302 read with 149 of IPC and sentenced them in the terms indicated below: -
| appellant-Accused No. 1, appellant-Accused No. 2 and appellant-Accused No. 3 | |
| Section | Sentence |
| Rigorous Imprisonment of 3 years | |
| Sections 302 read with 149 of IPC | Life Imprisonment |
| Ram Dhani, appellant-Accused No. 5 and appellant-Accused No. 6 | |
| Rigorous Imprisonment of 2 years | |
| Sections 302 read with 149 of IPC | Life Imprisonment |
3. Being aggrieved, the accused-appellants preferred an appeal,5[Criminal Appeal No. 418 of 1981] to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench,6[Hereinafter, referred to as ‘High Court’.], for assailing their conviction and the sentences awarded to them. The learned Division Bench of the High Court, vide judgment and order dated 20th November, 2011, dismissed the appeal preferred by the accused-appellants and affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court. However, the appeal in respect of co-accused, Ram Dhani stood abated, as he expired during the pendency of appeal before the High Court. The said judgment of the High Court is the subject matter of challenge in the present appeals by way of special leave.
4. At the outset, it may be noted that this Court granted bail to appellant-Accused Nos. 5 and 6 vide order dated 29th April, 2011 and to appellant-Accused Nos. 1 and 3 vide order dated 1st February, 2013. However, the prayer for suspension of sentence made on behalf of appellant-Accused Nos. 2 was rejected vide order dated 1st February, 2013, in view of the fact that the role attributed to him was graver.
5. It is also relevant to note that Raj Kishore (appellant-Accused No. 1) and Deo Prasad (appellant-Accused No. 5) passed away during the pendency of the present appeals before this Court. In view thereof, Criminal Appeal No. 237 of 2013, preferred on behalf of Raj Kishore (appellant-Accused No. 1), and Criminal Appeal No. 239 of 2013, insofar as it pertains to De
