Back
2025 Supreme(All) 3412
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SIDDHARTHA VARMA, RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, JJ.
Mohd. Sharif @ Suhail @ Sazid @ Anwar @ Ali – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Capital Cases No. 7 of 2019, Capital Cases No. 3 of 2020, Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 2020, Reference No. 6 of 2019
Decided On : 29-10-2025
For the Appellants : Imran Ullah, Raj Raghuvanshi, Sikandar Khan
For the Respondent: Sanjeev Kumar Pandey
Identification of unknown assailants for the first time in court without a Test Identification Parade (TIP) is inherently weak. Furthermore, circumstantial evidence using forensic reports is unreliable if safe custody (Malkhana entries) of exhibits is not proven, creating a fatal missing link in the chain of evidence.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 148, 302, 307, 333, 121 read with 149 - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Sections 16 and 20 - Arms Act, 1959 - Sections 25(1-A) and 27(3) - Explosive Substances Act, 1908 - Section 6 - Identification of accused for the first time in court without a Test Identification Parade (TIP) is inherently weak, particularly when the accused were strangers to the witnesses and the incident occurred at night - Failure to conduct a TIP and failure to keep accused under cover (baparda) after arrest prevents the court from relying on dock identification. (Paras 111, 112, 114)
(B) Circumstantial Evidence - Fingerprints and firearms - Absence of safe custody records (Malkhana or General Diary entries) and substantial delay in sending exhibits to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) creates a possibility of tampering - Missing links in the chain of custody for forensic exhibits negate the evidentiary value of FSL reports. (Paras 122, 123)
(C) Sanctions - Prosecution under the Explosive Substances Act and Chapter VI of the Indian Penal Code requires valid sanctions - Sanctions granted mechanically, without application of mind, or granted as an agent of the central government in contradiction to statutory notifications are invalid. (Paras 131, 132)
Facts of the case:
This matter pertains to a night attack on a government security camp involving automatic weapons and grenades, resulting in multiple deaths of personnel and a civilian. Several accused were subsequently arrested in possession of prohibited weapons. The trial court had convicted the accused under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, the Arms Act, and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, awarding death sentences to four of the accused and life imprisonment to another.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the eye-witness testimonies were unreliable as the witnesses did not know the accused previously and their identifications in court were inconsistent and preceded by a lack of TIP. The circumstantial evidence, specifically fingerprint and ballistic analysis, was discarded as the prosecution failed to prove the safe custody of the exhibits from the time of seizure until analysis. The sanctions for prosecution under the Explosive Substances Act and the Indian Penal Code were held to be defective. However, the recovery of prohibited weapons from the possession of the accused was upheld.
Issues: Whether identification in court without a prior TIP is sufficient for the conviction of unknown assailants; whether the chain of circumstantial evidence was sufficiently complete to link the accused to the crime; and whether the sanctions granted for prosecution were legally valid.
Ratio Decidendi: Identification of strangers for the first time at trial is inherently weak evidence and requires corroboration, typically through a TIP. For conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the chain must be complete, excluding every other hypothesis, and the safe custody of forensic exhibits must be strictly proved through official records to rule out tampering.
Result: Appeals allowed. Accused acquitted of all charges except Section 25(1-A) of the Arms Act, for which they were sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1 lac each.
JUDGMENT :
1. The above Appeals being Capital Case No. 7 of 2019 ( Mohd. Sharif @ Suhail @ Sazid @ Anwar @ Ali vs. State of U.P. ) and Capital Case No. 3 of 2020 ( Mohd. Sharif @ Suhail @ Sazid @ Anvar @ Ali and Ors. vs. State of U.P. ) have been filed against the judgment and order 1.11.2019 and 2.11.2019 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Rampur in Session Trial No. 208 of 2008 ( State vs. Mohd. Sharif @ Suhail and Ors. ) (Leading Case) connected with Session Trial No. 338 of 2009 ( State vs. Mohd. Sharif and Ors. ), Session Trial No. 664 of 2009 ( State vs. Imran Shahjad and Ors. ), Session Trial No. 09 of 2010 ( State vs. Imran Shahjad and Ors. ) and Session Trial No. 179 of 2011 ( State vs. Sabauddin ). Since in Session Trial No. 208 of 2008, Session Trial No. 09 of 2010 and in Session Trial No. 179 of 2011 the accused Mohd Sharif, Imran Shahjad, Mohd. Farooq and Sabauddin were awarded capital punishment, reference being Reference No. 6 of 2019 has been sent for confirmation on 4.11.2019 to this Court.
2. Against the capital sentence, Mohd. Sharif filed Capital Case No. 7 of 2019 while Capital Case No. 3 of 2020 was filed by Mohd. Sharif alongwith Imran Shahjad, Mohd. Farooq and Sabauddin. Criminal Appeal 31 of 2020 was filed by Jang Bahadur Khan against his conviction which was of life imprisonment. All the accused persons were awarded punishments in the following manner:
(1) The accused persons namely (1) Mohd. Sharif @ Suhail @ Sajid @ Anwar @ Ali, (2) Sabauddin @ Sahabuddin @ Sabah @ Sanjeev @ Farhan @ Saba @ Abu-al-Kasim @ Babar @ Mubassir @ Samir @ Iftekhar, (3) Imran Shahjad @ Abu Osama @ Ajay @ Asad @ Rameez Raja Owais and (4) Mohd. Farooq @ Abu Zulkar Nain @ Abujar @ Amar Singh were convicted under Section 302 read with section 149 of I.P.C. and were punished with death sentence and a fine of Rs. 50,000/- (each of the accused). In the event of default, they were to undergo an additional imprisonment for three months.
(2) The accused persons namely (1) Mohd. Sharif @ Suhail @ Sajid @ Anwar @ Ali, (2) Sabauddin @ Sahabuddin @ Sabah @ Sanjeev @ Farhan @ Saba @ Abu-al-Kasim @ Babar @ Mubassir @ Samir @ Iftekhar, (3) Imran Shahjad @ Abu Osama @ Ajay @ Asad @ Rameez Raja Owais and (4) Mohd. Farooq @ Abu Zulkar Nain @ Abujar @ Amar Singh were convicted under Section27(3) of Arms Act for death sentence.
(3) The accused persons namely (1) Mohd. Sharif @ Suhail @ Sajid @ Anwar @ Ali, (2) Sabauddin @ Sahabuddin @ Sabah @Sanjeev @ Farhan @ Saba @ Abu-al-Kasim @ Babar @ Mubassir @ Samir @ Iftekhar, (3) Imran Shahjad @ Abu Osama @ Ajay @ Asad @ Rameez Raja Owais and (4) Mohd. Farooq @ Abu Zulkar Nain @ Abujar @ Amar Singh were to be hung by the neck until they died.
(4) The accused person namely Jang Bahadur Khan was convicted under Section 302 read with section 149 of I.P.C. for life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 50,000/-. In the event of default, he was to undergo an additional imprisonment for three months.
(5) The accused persons namely (1) Mohd. Sharif @ Suhail @ Sajid @ Anwar @ Ali, (2) Sabauddin @ Sahabuddin @ Sabah @ Sanjeev @ Farhan @ Saba @ Abu-al-Kasim @ Babar @ Mubassir @ Samir @ Iftekhar, (3) Imran Shahjad @ Abu Osama @ Ajay @ Asad @ Rameez Raja Owais and (4) Mohd. Farooq @ Abu Zulkar Nain @ Abujar @ Amar Singh (5) Jang Bahadur Khan @ Baba were also convicted under Section 148 of I.P.C. for imprisonment of three years.
(6) The accused persons namely (1) Mohd. Sharif @ Suhail @ Sajid @ Anwar @ Ali, (2) Sabauddin @ Sahabuddin @ Sabah @ Sanjeev @ Farhan @ Saba @ Abu-al-Kasim @ Babar @ Mubassir @ Samir @ Iftekhar, (3) Imran Shahjad @ Abu Osama @ Ajay @ Asad @ Rameez Raja Owais and (4) Mohd. Farooq @ Abu Zulkar Nain @ Abujar @ Amar Singh (5) Jang Bahadur Khan @ Baba were, in addition to the above, convicted under Section 307 read with section 149 of I.P.C. for imprisonment of 10 years and a fine of Rs. 25,000/- (each of the accused). In the event of default, they were to undergo an additional imp
