Un-Conducted Test Identification Parade And Delayed Statements Fatal To Prosecution: Allahabad HC

Exposing a botched-up police investigation and serious evidentiary gaps, the High Court has quashed a murder conviction after finding that dock identification without a prior test identification parade and delayed recording of witness statements render the prosecution's case completely unreliable.

A Division Bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Achal Sachdev set aside the conviction and life imprisonment imposed on two individuals who were charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. The court scrutinised the systemic lapses in the investigation, highlighting that the police had fabricated evidence sitting in the station rather than conducting a fair probe.

Court Observations and Directions

The court observed serious infirmities in how the police handled the witnesses and forensic material. It stressed that the failure to conduct a Test Identification Parade (TIP) when the accused were not initially named in the FIR made the subsequent court identification unreliable. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The police had botched up the entire investigation and somehow tried to only implicate the appellants... The very fact that the prosecution case was that the blood had been washed and still blood was being found and also being sent to the FSL shows the extent of tampering done with the evidence by the police, and it can be said that it was not just a minor tampering but the tampering has led the Court to believe that the investigation was in the hands of a very puerile police which requires proper training."

The Court has following directions:

"Under such circumstances, the appeals deserve to be allowed and are, accordingly, allowed. The judgment and order dated 30.3.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Saharanpur in Sessions Trial No.284 of 2011 is quashed. The appellants in both the appeals are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. The appellant-Altaf in Criminal Appeal No.2597 of 2016 is in jail. He be released forthwith, if not required in any other criminal case. The appellant-Sanjeev in Criminal Appeal No.2295 of 2016, as per the office report dated 30.3.2026, is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are hereby discharged. Sri Pradeep Kumar Mishra, learned Amicus Curiae for his hard work be paid a sum of Rs.25,000/- by the High Court Legal Services Authority. The Registrar General to oversee the payment."

Background

The dispute originated from an incident on February 8, 2011, when a labourer named Shabbir was stabbed to death outside a meat factory in Saharanpur. An un-named FIR was lodged shortly after the crime. Days later, the police arrested the appellants based on informer news and alleged recovery of a knife and SIM cards. The trial court convicted both appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to life imprisonment, along with a conviction under the Arms Act for one appellant.

On appeal, the defence argued that the appellants were not named in the initial FIR and were implicated much later through delayed statements recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.. Relying on legal precedents such as Amrik Singh vs. State of Punjab ( "(2022) 9 SCC 402": 2022 CaseBase(SC) 914), Kanan and others vs. State of Kerala ( "(1979) 3 SCC 319": 1979 CaseBase(SC) 278), Rameshwar Singh vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir ( "(1971) 2 SCC 715": 1971 CaseBase(SC) 569), Malkhan Singh and Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, and Harbeer Singh vs. Sheesh Pal ( "(2016) 16 SCC 418": 2016 CaseBase(SC) 314), the defence contended that identification for the first time in court without a test identification parade is a weak piece of evidence and that belatedly recorded witness statements ought to be discarded.

The High Court agreed with the defence arguments, finding that the investigation was severely botched, evidence was potentially tampered with, and no voice sampling was done to verify alleged extortion calls. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeals, quashed the trial court's judgment, and acquitted both appellants.

Case Details:
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 2597 of 2016
Case Title: Altaf v. State of U.P. (along with Criminal Appeal No. 2295 of 2016)
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Pradeep Kumar Mishra (Amicus Curiae), Dhiraj Kumar Pandey, Mohit Kumar, Ramesh Chandra Srivastava, Suresh Kumar Maurya, Zafar Abbas
For the Respondent(s): G.A., Sayeed Saif Ullah, Sufia Saba

Source: 2026 CaseBase(ALL) 880