Allahabad High Court Acquits Terror Attack Convicts Due to Weak Identification and Investigation Lapses

Court sets aside death sentences in CRPF Camp attack case, citing absence of Test Identification Parade, faulty evidence custody, and invalid prosecution sanctions; convicts acquitted except under Arms Act for possession of prohibited arms.

In a landmark judgment delivered on October 29, 2025, the Allahabad High Court (Division Bench of Justices Siddhartha Varma and Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra) acquitted four accused-Mohd. Sharif @ Suhail, Sabauddin, Imran Shahjad, and Mohd. Farooq-convicted and sentenced to death in connection with a deadly terrorist attack on the CRPF Camp in Rampur, Uttar Pradesh, that occurred on January 1, 2008. The court also acquitted Jang Bahadur Khan, who had been sentenced to life imprisonment. The acquittals were granted on the grounds of serious procedural lapses during investigation and trial, including failure to conduct a Test Identification Parade (TIP), weak and contradictory identification evidence, and questionable custody and handling of critical forensic evidence.

The attack, which took place around 2:25 AM, involved multiple assailants firing automatic weapons and hurling hand grenades at CRPF personnel, resulting in the death of seven CRPF jawans and a rickshaw puller, along with multiple injuries. An FIR was lodged by Sub-Inspector Om Prakash Sharma, who along with his police team, arrived at the scene and engaged the attackers.

Key points raised during the appeals and emphasized by the High Court include:

• 1. Identification Issues:  
•   None of the prosecution witnesses had identified the accused at the time of the incident or during the initial statements recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). The accused were strangers to the witnesses, and no descriptions sufficient to identify the assailants were recorded in the FIR or early investigation reports. The accused were identified for the first time during the trial in court, without any prior TIP, rendering such identification inherently weak and unreliable. The court relied on precedents, including the Supreme Court's ruling in Amrik Singh v. State of Punjab (2022), underscoring the necessity of TIP to strengthen identification evidence.

• 2. Investigation and Evidence Custody Lapses:  
•   The forensic evidence, such as fingerprints lifted from the crime scene and recovered weapons and ammunition, suffered from questionable custody and chain-of-evidence issues. No satisfactory proof was provided about the safe storage of fingerprints between the date of lifting and their submission to the forensic laboratory months later. The authenticity of the fingerprint evidence was thus undermined. Similarly, the handling and storage of recovered weapons, magazines, grenades, and empty cartridges lacked proper documentation and reliable safeguarding, casting doubt on their evidentiary value.

• 3. Sanction Deficiencies:  
•   The court observed that prosecution sanctions under various statutes, including the Explosive Substances Act and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), were either invalid or not properly obtained. For instance, the sanction under Section 6 of the Explosive Substances Act was given by the District Magistrate on behalf of the Government of India, which was held to be null due to legal amendments requiring the sanction to be given independently by the District Magistrate. Absence of valid sanctions vitiated the trial proceedings under these laws.

• 4. Circumstantial Evidence and Conspiracy:  
•   The prosecution failed to establish a complete and consistent chain of circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the crime. There was a lack of proof of meeting of minds or conspiracy among the accused, and key witnesses turned hostile or failed to corroborate the prosecution's narrative. The court reiterated the principles laid down in Sharad Birdichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra and State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini that circumstantial evidence must exclude all other hypotheses and create a complete chain to convict.

• 5. Possession of Prohibited Arms:  
•   Despite acquittals on major charges, the court found that the accused were guilty of possession of prohibited arms and ammunition under Section 25(1-A) of the Arms Act, 1959. Recoveries included AK-47 rifles, magazines, live cartridges, and hand grenades. The court sentenced the accused to 10 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1 lakh each for this offence, recognizing the statutory maximum penalty under the law prevailing at the time of the incident.

The judgment highlights the critical importance of proper investigative procedures, including early and reliable identification of accused persons, strict maintenance of the chain of custody for forensic evidence, and compliance with procedural requirements such as obtaining valid prosecution sanctions. The court expressed deep concern over investigative lapses that compromised the prosecution's case and stressed that procedural safeguards are essential to uphold the rule of law and ensure justice.

This ruling serves as a precedent emphasizing that convictions in serious cases, including terrorism, must be based on reliable and legally sound evidence, failing which the fundamental rights of the accused cannot be compromised. The State of Uttar Pradesh has been given liberty to take appropriate departmental action against those responsible for investigative deficiencies.

Bottom Line:

Conviction in a terror attack case cannot be sustained where identification of accused was not established at the time of incident or investigation - No Test Identification Parade was conducted, and there were serious lapses in safe custody of recovered evidence including fingerprints and arms - Accused persons acquitted except for conviction under Section 25(1-A) Arms Act for possession of prohibited arms.

Statutory provision(s): Indian Penal Code Sections 302, 307, 333, 148, 121, 120B, 149; Arms Act Sections 25(1-A), 27(3); Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act Sections 16, 20; Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act Section 4; Explosive Substances Act Sections 3, 4, 5, 6; Criminal Procedure Code Sections 161, 196, 313, 366

Mohd. Sharif @ Suhail @ Sazid @ Anwar @ Ali v. State of U.P., (Allahabad)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2800623