Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(All) 483

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SIDDHARTHA VARMA, PRASHANT MISHRA-I, JJ.
Ranjeet Yadav - Appellant
Vs.
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. - 9263 of 2023, Criminal Appeal U/s 372 Cr.P.C. No. 439 of 2023:
Decided On : 29-05-2026

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Ashutosh Kumar Mishra, Girish Kumar Singh, Rajrshi Gupta, Rizwan Ahamad, Sr. Advocate
For the Respondent: G.A. Amrendra Pratap Singh, Ashok Kumar Yadav, G.A., Girish Kumar Singh

A delayed FIR, accompanied by material contradictions between ocular and medical evidence and a lack of independent corroboration in an alleged group assault, renders the prosecution case doubtful, necessitating acquittal particularly when the investigative process is shown to be significantly flawed.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 352, 504, 506 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 161 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 58, 65B - Murder conviction - Delayed First Information Report - Evaluation of eyewitness credibility - Where there is a significant, unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, it often indicates an afterthought and can result in prejudice to the prosecution case (Paras 37-38). The court must scrutinize ocular testimony for internal inconsistencies and contradictions, especially when weighed against medical evidence (Paras 39-40).

(B) Appellate scrutiny - Principle of parity - When convictions are based on identical evidence, the court cannot distinguish between the cases of similarly situated accused; acquitting some while convicting others on the same evidence violates the principle of parity (Para 31).

Facts of the case:
An appeal was filed against the conviction for murder and associated offenses. The prosecution case relied on the testimony of two eyewitnesses, the wife and daughter of the deceased, alleging a group assault. The incident occurred on August 21, 2018, but the FIR was lodged after a delay of approximately 42.5 hours. Several discrepancies were noted regarding the presence of the witnesses at the scene, the medical evidence, and the lack of independent witnesses despite the public nature of the incident.

Findings of Court:
The court found the 42.5-hour delay in reporting the incident to be unexplained and prejudicial. Further, the ocular testimony suffered from major contradictions and failed to align with the medical examination, which showed injuries on the back of the body, contradicting the claim of a face-to-face assault. The court also noted that the investigation was severely flawed, with no effort to recover the vehicle mentioned in the FIR or secure independent testimony, and the motive was deemed weak.

Issues: The main issues addressed were the legality of the conviction in light of the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, the credibility of eyewitness testimony containing material contradictions, and whether the principle of parity necessitated the acquittal of the remaining appellants.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that where eyewitness accounts are inconsistent with physical evidence and the FIR is submitted with an unexplained, substantial delay, the entire prosecution story becomes unreliable. The failure to produce independent witnesses in a public incident, coupled with investigative lapses, renders the conviction unsustainable.

Result: Appeals allowed; judgment of conviction set aside and accused acquitted.

Table of Content
1. evidentiary record of trial proceedings and prosecution narrative (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 30)
2. assessment of delay in fir and the probative value of contradictory witness testimony (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)
3. invalidation of conviction due to unexplained delay in fir and conflicting ocular evidence (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 44)
4. requirement of section 65-b certificate for electronic evidence admissibility (Para 42 , 43)
5. acquittal due to failure of evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt (Para 45 , 46 , 47)

JUDGMENT :

1. The Criminal Appeals No. 9263 of 2023, 9255 of 2023, 9555 of 2023 and 9965 of 2023 have been filed against the judgement and order dated 10.8.2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Court No. 4, Deoria, in Sessions Trial No. 19 of 2019 (State vs. Devendra Yadav and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 144 of 2018, under Sections 302/34, 352, 504, 506 IPC and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station – Bankata, District – Deoria, whereby the trial court convicted and sentenced the appellants, Devendra Yadav, Dan Singh Yadav, Ranjeet Yadav and Amit Kumar Rai, as follows:

(i) under Section 302/34 IPC, to undergo imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo two months’ additional imprisonment;

(ii) under Section 352 IPC, to undergo one month’s rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 500/- each, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo five days’additional imprisonment;

(iii) under Section 504 IPC, to undergo six months’ rigorous imprisonment, and in default thereof, to further undergo ten days’ additional imprisonment;

(iv) under Section 506 IPC, to undergo one year’s rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo twenty days’

additional imprisonment; and (v) under Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, to undergo one month’s rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 100/- each, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one day’s additional imprisonment.

2. The Criminal Appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C., being Criminal Appeal No. 439 of 2023, has been filed against the judgment and order dated 10.8.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Court No. 4, Deoria, whereby the accused, Brahma Yadav and Rohit Yadav, were acquitted of the charges under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, 323/149, 352, 504 and 506 IPC, as well as Section 7 of the Criminal Law (Amendment)Act.

3. Upon an incident which allegedly took place on 21.8.2018 at 19:00 hours (7:00PM), the first information report with regard to it was lodged by the complainant Neha Rai, the daughter of the deceased on 23.8.2018 at 13:29 hours(1:29PM). It was alleged in the first information report that at the relevant point of time, the first informant Neha Rai along with her mother Harikant Devi and father Uma Shankar Rai was living in their house at Deoria. She had stated that she had four brothers. The eldest brother was living in Mumbai and was doing the work of contractor and the second eldest brother Jitendra Rai was also living in Mumabi and was doing his private business. Third brother Raghvendra Rai was living in Bangalore and was working in a steel plant and the fourth brother Narendra Kumar was doing a job in Ahemdabad. In the first information report even before the incident was being reported, the motive was given out that in the front of her Sahen, one decimal of land of gaon sabha was there and with regard to possession over it there was a dispute always raised by one Amit Kumar Rai. In his support, Devendra Rai son of Subhash Yadav always used to be there and had on many an occasion along with his support in the past had beaten up Uma Shankar Ra