The Allahabad High Court has directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate allegations surrounding manipulated photographic evidence, which was used to substantiate an alibi by an accused in a criminal case. The order was passed by Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh while hearing Criminal Revision No. 70 of 2024 involving Gurendra @ Golu (Revisionist) and the State of U.P. & Another (Opposite Party).
Background of the Case
The case revolves around a shooting incident on May 12, 2022, in Amroha district, Uttar Pradesh, where Pushpa Devi, the sister of the complainant, sustained serious injuries from a gunshot. Four individuals, including the revisionist, Gurendra alias Golu, were named in the First Information Report (FIR) filed the same day. Medical reports confirmed that Pushpa suffered six grievous injuries caused by a firearm.
Following the investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet against two accused—Gurendra and another individual, Kallu. The revisionist subsequently filed an application for discharge, which was rejected by the trial court on December 2, 2023. Challenging this rejection, Gurendra filed a criminal revision before the High Court.
Legal Issues
1. Alibi Claim: The core issue in the case is the alibi defense put forth by Gurendra, who claimed that he was at the Photo Identification Centre of the Allahabad High Court on the day of the incident, more than 700 kilometers away from Amroha. He argued that his photograph was taken at 11:45 AM at the High Court’s Photo Identification Centre, allegedly proving his presence in Allahabad at the time of the shooting in Amroha.
2. Manipulation of Photographic Evidence: The complainant’s counsel, Mr. Rajneesh Kumar Sharma, vehemently opposed this alibi, alleging that the photograph submitted by Gurendra was manipulated. According to the complainant, a gang operating at the Photo Identification Centre was involved in backdating photographs for a fee. The complainant, Pushpa, also claimed that she was able to obtain a backdated photo on June 13, 2023, after paying ₹3,000, further strengthening the suspicion that Gurendra’s alibi photo was fabricated.
Court’s Observations
Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh emphasized the seriousness of the allegations and the potential misuse of the system if such practices are allowed to continue unchecked. The court noted:
“If above noted submissions of learned counsel for the complainant are correct, then it is a matter of serious concern, and in case this practice is allowed to continue, several persons accused or involved in heinous crimes may take undue advantage of this system.”
The court further observed that the trial court had noted the absence of the alibi photo during the initial investigation. Additionally, it remarked that no plausible reason was provided by Gurendra for not submitting the photograph to the investigating officer earlier.
The Decision
Recognizing the gravity of the situation, the court decided that an independent inquiry was necessary. Justice Singh directed the CBI to investigate the authenticity of the photographic evidence and the allegations of manipulation at the Photo Identification Centre. The court ordered the Joint Director of CBI, Lucknow, to appoint an officer to conduct the inquiry and submit a sealed report by November 4, 2024.
Additionally, the court ordered full cooperation from all parties involved in the case and instructed the Registrar General of the High Court to provide the CBI with all relevant documents, including the report of the Secretary, High Court Bar Association, and photographs submitted during the trial.
Counsels and Parties Involved
– For the Revisionist: Mr. Sudhakar Yadav and Mr. Manoj Kumar represented Gurendra @ Golu.
– For the Opposite Party/Complainant: Mr. Rajneesh Kumar Sharma and Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh represented Pushpa Devi.
– For the CBI: Senior counsel Mr. Gyan Prakash was present during the hearing and was instructed to communicate the court’s order to the Joint Director of CBI.
