2026 Supreme(All) 503

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SIDDHARTHA VARMA, JAI KRISHNA UPADHYAY, JJ.
Babloo Dubey @ Vishnudhar Dubey – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2089 of 2023 With Criminal Appeal No. 2855 of 2023 With Criminal Appeal No. 2861 of 2023 With Criminal Appeal No. 2088 of 2023 With Criminal Appeal No. 2519 of 2023
Decided On : 26-05-2026

The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Significant contradictions between ocular testimony, medical evidence regarding time of death, and forensic failure to correlate recovered weapons with the crime, combined with procedural lapses in identification, necessitate the reversal of conviction and acquittal through the benefit of doubt.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 147, 148, 307/149, 302/149, 504 - Arms Act - Sections 3/25 - Evidence Act - Section 27 - Criminal Procedure - Conviction and sentence for murder occurring during a public incident - Reliability of eyewitness testimony - Where eyewitness accounts are contradictory regarding the place and timing of the incident and are inconsistent with medical and forensic evidence, the conviction cannot be sustained. (Paras 32, 33, 37, 38)

(B) Evidence - Identification - Dock identification - Necessity of test identification parade or dock identification - In the absence of identification procedures for an accused not named in the initial report, the integrity of the trial process is compromised and renders evidence vulnerable. (Para 34)

(C) Evidence - Forensic Consistency - Failure to link ballistic evidence with recovered weapons creates a fatal gap in the prosecution case - Procedural lapses in recovery of weapons and lack of disclosure statements invalidate the discovery under the statutory framework. (Paras 32, 38)

Facts of the case:
The prosecution alleged that a group assaulted the deceased using firearms during a ritual gathering. The defense contended that the prosecution story was fabricated, citing the lack of motive, the unreliable nature of the eyewitnesses, the failure of forensic ballistic reports to match recovered weapons to the incident, and provided an alibi for one of the accused. The trial court had convicted the accused based on the eyewitness testimony.

Findings of Court:
The Court observed that the site of the occurrence was shifting according to the accounts of the main witnesses, creating fundamental doubt. Medical evidence regarding the condition of the deceased's stomach suggested a discrepancy in the time of death as alleged by the prosecution. Furthermore, the ballistic report failed to correlate the recovered firearms with the cartridges and bullets found at the site. The Court also noted the absence of proper identification procedures.

Issues: The main issues were the credibility of the eyewitness testimony given the contradictions in time and place, the evidentiary value of forensic/ballistics in debunking the prosecution version, and whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Ratio Decidendi: When prosecution ocular evidence is fundamentally inconsistent with physical and medical evidence, and when forensic verification of recovered weapons fails, the court must grant the benefit of doubt to the accused as the prosecution has failed to establish guilt with the requisite certainty.

Result: Appeals allowed; convictions set aside.

Table of Content
1. procedural consolidation for common judgment in related criminal appeals. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. factual narrative of the incident, medical examination, and initial police investigation. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. formal procedural steps of trial, evidence submission, and accused defense interaction. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
4. assessment of testimonial and documentary evidence provided by the prosecution. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
5. evaluation of defense evidence and alibi claims regarding the accused. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
6. review of the parties' respective legal arguments and procedural history. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
7. judicial assessment of conflicting evidence and the assessment of reasonable doubt. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39)
8. reversal of conviction and final acquittal of all charges due to lack of proof. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43)

JUDGMENT :

1. Since these criminal appeals arise out of same case crime number, they have been heard together and are being decided by a common judgment and order. Criminal Appeal No. 2089 of 2023 is being treated as a leading case.

2. The validity and sustainability of the judgment and order dated 13/17.2.2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge (Anti Corruption Act) Court No.1 Gorakhpur, in Session Trial No.19 of 2015 ( State of U.P. Vs. Govind Yadav and another ), Session Trial No. 290 of 2015 ( State of U.P. vs. Rinku @ Rajiv Yadav and another ), Session Trial No. 445 of 2015 ( State of U.P. vs. Rajan Yadav ), Session Trial No. 234 of 2017 ( State of U.P. vs. Bablu Dubey @ Vishnudhar Dubey ), arising out of Case Crime No. 463 of 2014 under Sections 147, 148, 307/149, 302/149 IPC, Session Trial No. 252 of 2015 (State of U.P. vs. Govind Yadav), arising out of case crime no. 519 of 2014, under Sections 3/25 Arms Act and Session Trial No. 253 of 2015 ( State of U.P. vs. Suresh Yadav ), arising out of case crime no. 520 of 2014, under Sections 3/25 Arms Act, P.S. Khorabad, District Gorakhpur whereby the appellants Govind Yadav, Suresh Yadav, Rinku @ Rajiv Yadav, Monu Yadav, Rajan Yadav have been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302/149 IPC with a fine of Rs.50,000/- each, to undergo two years imprisonment under Section 147 IPC, to undergo three years imprisonment under Section 148 IPC, to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment under Section 307/149 IPC with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- each., appellant Babludhar Dubey @ Vishnudhar Dubey has been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302/149 IPC with a fine of Rs.50,000/-, to undergo two years imprisonment under Section 148 IPC, to undergo two years imprisonment under Section 504 IPC, to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment under Section 307/149 IPC with a fine of Rs. 20,000/-., appellants Govind Yadav and Suresh Yadav have also been convicted and sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Sections 3/25 Arms Act.

3. All sentences were directed to run concurrently with default clauses.

4. Upon an incident, which had occurred on 8.8.2014 wherein the informant Shiv Pratap Yadav @ Sadhu Yadav son of Ram Vriksh Yadav, resident of Behiahata Dakshin, Police Station Cantt., District Gorakhpur, had got lodged a First Information Report (in short ‘FIR’) with regard to it. It was informed that the informant had gone to a particular plot of land which belonged to his bhabhi Sunita, wife of Raju Yadav since the year 2007. The purpose of being there on the plot in question on 8.8.2014 was that the foundation had to be laid for the construction of a house and that was to be done in the presence of the informant, his elder brother Raju Yadav and relatives Rajesh Yadav and Manish Yadav. At the particular point of time when the work of diging of pit for conducting Pooja etc. was going on and around 10.00 a.m. Govind Yadav, Suresh Yadav and his two real brothers, whose names

Click Here to Read the rest of this document