Conviction and death sentence overturned due to inconsistencies in witness testimonies and lack of substantive evidence.
In a significant judgment delivered by Justice Siddharth of the Allahabad High Court on March 31, 2026, the capital punishment awarded to Raiyyan in the murder case of NIA officer Mohd. Tanzil and his wife Farzana has been overturned. The court's decision comes after a detailed evaluation of the testimonies and evidence presented during the trial, which highlighted several discrepancies and unsupported claims.
The trial court had convicted Raiyyan based on oral dying declarations and testimonies from witnesses who identified the accused for the first time six years after the incident. The High Court found these testimonies inconsistent and lacking corroboration from the First Information Report (FIR) or police statements. The court noted that the prosecution's case heavily relied on these belated testimonies without substantive evidence to support them.
Key witnesses, including PW-1 Raghib Masood, PW-2 Hasib Ahmad, and PW-6 Zimnish Kadiba, failed to name the accused in their initial statements to the police or the FIR, raising doubts about their credibility. Additionally, the statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC by other witnesses were found to be made under police pressure, further weakening the prosecution's case.
The court also criticized the lack of docket identification in court and the absence of a test identification parade, which are crucial in confirming the identity of the accused in criminal cases. It emphasized the need for the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases involving capital punishment.
Citing judgments from the Supreme Court, the High Court reiterated that omissions in the FIR and police statements could significantly undermine the credibility of witness testimonies. It concluded that the prosecution failed to provide consistent and credible evidence against Raiyyan, leading to the setting aside of his conviction and death sentence.
The acquittal of Raiyyan highlights the judiciary's commitment to ensuring that convictions are based on solid and corroborated evidence, maintaining the integrity of the legal process.
Bottom Line:
Criminal Law - Capital punishment - Conviction based on uncorroborated oral dying declarations and testimonies of witnesses who named the accused for the first time after six years - Credibility of prosecution witnesses questioned due to omissions in FIR and police statements - Absence of docket identification in court and lack of substantive evidence - Conviction set aside and accused acquitted.
Statutory provision(s):
Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 302/34, Evidence Act, 1872 Section 157, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Sections 161, 164, 313.
Raiyyan v. State of U.P., (Allahabad) : Law Finder Doc id # 2880011
