Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(All) 573

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Siddhartha Varma, Prashant Mishra-I, JJ.
Yogesh - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. - 5319 of 2021, Criminal Appeal No. 5365 of 2021, Criminal Appeal No. 5307 of 2021
Decided On : 19-05-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Arya Suman Pandey, Ashutosh Singh, Ayush Mishra, Rajiv Lochan Shukla, Saurabh Pandey, Sunil Kumar Misra, Suresh Chandra Pandey
For the Respondent: G.A.

A conviction in a criminal trial cannot be sustained when the prosecution fails to establish the FIR was timely, fails to prove the actual presence of eyewitnesses through consistent testimony, and fails to conduct a valid identification procedure for unknown accused, thereby failing to satisfy the burden of proof.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302/34 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 161 - Murder trial - Ante-timing of First Information Report (FIR) - Prosecution must prove the genesis of the crime beyond reasonable doubt - Discrepancies between the FIR, inquest report, and subsequent evidentiary record regarding distance and timing warrant an inference that the FIR was ante-timed - (Para 25)

(B) Criminal Trial - Witness reliability - Presence of eyewitnesses at the spot - Where significant contradictions exist regarding the visibility of the incident and the conduct of witnesses, their presence at the scene becomes highly doubtful - Mere claim of presence is insufficient when the physical evidence and witness testimony demonstrate inconsistencies - (Para 25)

(C) Criminal Trial - Identification of accused - Test Identification Parade (TIP) - When accused are not known to the witnesses, a formal identification process is fundamental - Absence of a TIP or credible dock identification renders the prosecution’s reliance on witness testimony vulnerable and fatal to the case - Standard of proof requires conclusive identification in court - (Para 25)

Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted for the murder of an individual within a college campus. The prosecution relied upon the testimony of alleged eyewitnesses who claimed to have seen the incident. The defense argued that the FIR was ante-timed, the eyewitnesses were not present, and the accused were never identified through a valid identification parade or during the trial process.

Findings of Court:
The court observed glaring inconsistencies in the evidence provided. The timing and narrative regarding the filing of the FIR, the handling of the body, and the contradictory accounts of the crime scene topography effectively discredited the eye-witnesses' claims of being present. The trial court also significantly erred by relying on unproven documents regarding the deceased's student status and failed to ensure proper identification of the accused, violating settled criminal jurisprudence.

Issues: The primary issues were whether the FIR was ante-timed, whether the prosecution sufficiently established the presence of eyewitnesses, and whether the court could sustain a conviction without proper identification of the accused.

Ratio Decidendi: The court maintained that the prosecution must stand on its own feet and prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The combination of an ante-timed FIR, the absence of any Test Identification Parade for unknown accused, the lack of dock identification, and manifest contradictions regarding witness presence precludes the possibility of sustaining a conviction. The integrity of the trial process was compromised by these failures.

Result: Appeals allowed; appellants honourably acquitted.

Table of Content
1. procedural context for criminal appeals against conviction. (Para 1 , 2)
2. initial prosecution narrative and incident investigation. (Para 3 , 4)
3. evaluation of testimonial evidence from witnesses and police. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
4. defence evidence and contradiction by hostile eye-witnesses. (Para 18 , 19 , 20)
5. summary of conflicting arguments regarding fir timing and identification. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
6. court finds fatal irregularities in prosecution case and trial procedure. (Para 25 , 26)
7. acquittal due to failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 27 , 28 , 29)

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Neeja Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 5307 of 2021; Sri Sagheer Ahmad, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Tripurari Pal, learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 5365 of 2021 and Sri Suresh Chand Pandey along with Sri Saurabh Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 5319 of 2021; Sri Naseeruzzaman, learned counsel appearing for the informant and Sri C.B. Dhar Dubey, learned A.G.A. for the State were extensively heard.

2. These three Criminal Appeals have been filed by the three convicted accused persons namely Roby @ Sanjeev Kumar, Raghvendra @ Kaalu and Yogesh against the judgment and order dated 24.09.2021 passed by the Sessions Judge, Aligarh in Session Trial No. 109 of 2003 arising out of Case Crime No. 307 of 2002, under Section 302/34 of I.P.C., Police Station – Gandhi Park, District – Aligarh. A fine of Rs. 20,000/- had also been imposed and they had to go additional rigorous imprisonment for six months in default of the payment of fine.

3. Upon an incident that had occurred on 27.04.2002 at around 07:00 AM, a first information report was lodged at 07:45 AM by one Balveer Singh, Advocate R/o Press Colony, Police Station Civil Lines, District Aligarh alleging that on 27.04.2002 in the morning, he had gone to drop his son Sanjeev Chaudhari at Dharm Samaj Mahavidyalaya (hereinafter called the D.S. Mahavidyalaya) on his Maruti car (UP 81 D 7155). He had stated that it was the last paper of the B.A. final year and that along with him his nephew, Ramesh, Vimal and Jugendra, had also accompanied him. He had stated in the first information report that when at 07:00 AM they had reached the D.S. Mahavidyalaya gate then his son got out of the car and went inside the college. At that moment Roby @ Sanjeev Kumar son of Bhupendra Singh, Kaalu son of Shailendra and Yogesh son of not known to the complainant, were waiting inside the college and they, from their country made pistols with an intention to kill the son of the applicant Sanjeev Chaudhari, fired upon him. It has been stated that because of the firing done on the son of the complainant, he died on the spot. This incident, he had stated, he had himself seen and was also witnessed by the persons who were accompanying him in the car. He had also given the motive for the firing that the three assailants because of some enmity owing to some land dispute etc. had committed the murder. He had stated that the dead-body of his son was lying at the spot and he had prayed for action.

4. Upon having lodged the report, police had got into action and from the spot in question recovered one live cartridge of 315 bore and one country made pistol of 315 bore from the pocket of the pant (jeans) worn by the deceased, Sanjeev Chaudhari. A description of the pistol was also given. From the right pocket of the pant, three cartridges of 315 bore were also recovered. The 315 bore pistol alongwith the four cartridges were recovered and sealed and also a recovery memo of them was prepared as Exhibit Ka-9. From the spot, where the dead-body was lying, the plain soil and the soil which had blood stains was collected and recovery memo of it was prepared as Exhibit Ka-3. From the possession of the deceased,