The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has acquitted five men, including four who were on death row, of murder, terrorism (UAPA), and waging war (IPC) charges in connection with the 2008 terrorist attack on the CRPF Group Centre in Rampur.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Sidharth Verma and Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra concluded that the prosecution “miserably failed to prove the case against the accused for the principal offence beyond reasonable doubt” due to critical lapses and “defect in investigation.”
While setting aside the convictions for the main attack, the High Court convicted all five appellants—Mohd. Sharif @ Suhail, Sabauddin @ Sahabuddin, Imran Shahjad, Mohd. Farooq, and Jang Bahadur Khan @ Baba Khan—under Section 25(1-A) of the Arms Act for the “conscious possession” of prohibited firearms, including AK-47 rifles and hand grenades, recovered from them at the time of their arrest.
The court modified their sentences to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment, the maximum punishment available for this offence under the statute in 2008, along with a fine of Rs. 1 lakh each. The period already undergone by the appellants, who have been in custody since 2008, will be adjusted against this sentence.
The judgment was delivered on appeals (Capital Case No. 7 of 2019, Capital Case No. 3 of 2020, and Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 2020) filed by the convicts and a Death Reference (Reference No. 6 of 2021) sent by the trial court for confirmation of the death sentences.
Background of the Case
The appeals challenged the 2019 judgment by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rampur. The trial court had sentenced Mohd. Sharif, Sabauddin, Imran Shahjad, and Mohd. Farooq to death under Section 302/149 IPC and Section 27(3) of the Arms Act. Jang Bahadur Khan was sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302/149 IPC. All five were also convicted for various other serious offences, including Section 121 (Waging war against the Govt. of India) of the IPC and Sections 16 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
The case pertains to the terrorist attack on the CRPF Group Centre in Rampur during the intervening night of December 31, 2007, and January 1, 2008. According to the FIR lodged by Sub-Inspector Om Prakash Sharma (PW-1), at approximately 2:25 AM, 4-5 unidentified persons attacked the camp gate with automatic weapons and hand grenades.
The attack resulted in the deaths of seven CRPF personnel (Constable Anand Kumar, Havaldar Rishikesh Rai, Havaldar Afzal Ahmad, Havaldar Ramji Saran Mishra, Constable Manveer Singh, Constable Devendra Kumar, and Constable Vikas Kumar) and one civilian rickshaw puller, Kishan Lal. Several other police and CRPF personnel were also injured.
The appellants were arrested by STF teams on February 9 and 10, 2008, from Rampur, Moradabad, and Lucknow. Prohibited arms, including AK-47 rifles, Pakistani passports, and hand grenades, were allegedly recovered from them.
Appellants’ Arguments
Counsel for the appellants, led by Sri Imran Ullah, argued that the prosecution’s case was entirely unreliable, primarily contending:
- Failure of Identification: The appellants were unknown to all eyewitnesses (both police and CRPF) before the incident. No description was provided in the FIR or the initial statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
- No Test Identification Parade (TIP): Despite the accused being strangers, no TIP was conducted. The Investigating Officers (PW-24 and PW-25) admitted in their testimony that the accused were not kept ‘baparda’ (veiled or unidentified) after arrest and no application for a TIP was ever moved.
- Unreliable Dock Identification: The identification of the accused for the first time in court, years after the incident, was argued to be weak and inadmissible, citing judgments including Amrik Singh vs. State of Punjab (2022). The defence highlighted that PW-1 admitted to seeing a photograph of the accused Sabauddin at the police station, and PW-38 confused the accused during dock identification.
- Broken Chain of Custody (Fingerprints): The prosecution relied on fingerprints allegedly lifted from the scene on January 1, 2008. The defence argued there was no evidence (Malkhana register or GD entry) proving where these prints were kept in safe custody until April 3, 2008, making them susceptible to tampering.
- Broken Chain of Custody (Ballistics): Similarly, the firearms and empty cartridges recovered from the spot and from the accused were not proven to be in safe custody for three months before being sent to the FSL on April 5, 2008. The constable (Kallu) who allegedly transported the items was never examined, breaking the chain of evidence.
- Invalid Sanctions: The sanctions required for prosecution under the Explosive Substances Act, UAPA, and Chapter VI of the IPC were argued to be legally invalid or granted mechanically without application of mind.
High Court’s Analysis and Findings
The High Court concurred with the defence on almost all arguments related to the investigation, finding fatal flaws in the prosecution’s case.
On Identification: The bench found that the identification evidence was “inherently a weak piece of evidence.” The court noted the “admittedly” poor dock identification by PW-38 and the fact that PW-1 had seen a photograph of an accused. The judgment stated that in the absence of a TIP and the accused not being kept ‘baparda’, the identification evidence failed.
On Circumstantial Evidence (Fingerprints): The court found the prosecution’s story regarding the fingerprints to be unreliable. It termed the three-month gap in custody (1.1.2008 to 3.4.2008) a “big mystery.” The court observed that PW-24 and PW-25 (the IOs) “have also not been able to tell in their testimonies as to where the finger prints… were kept.” The court concluded, “Possibility of tampering could not be thus ruled out.”
On Circumstantial Evidence (Ballistics): The court found an identical failure in the handling of firearms evidence. “No Malkhana register entry or GD entry was placed on record. No witness was examined who carried these exhibits to the FSL. To be precise, one Constable Kallu had carried the articles but he was never produced in the witness box…” The court held that without this link evidence, the FSL report (which itself found many cartridges did not match the recovered weapons) could not be relied upon to connect the recovered weapons to the crime scene.
On Investigation Lapses: The bench severely admonished the investigating agencies, stating: “We are deeply concerned with the magnitude and enormity of the offence and at the same time we are constrained to observe that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the case against the accused for the principal offence beyond reasonable doubt… This case would have met a different result had the investigation and the prosecution been conducted by a more trained police.”
On Sanctions: The court also found the sanction under the Explosive Substances Act to be invalid. It noted the District Magistrate granted it “on behalf of the Government of India,” whereas a 2002 amendment required the DM to grant it independently, not as an “agent of the Government of India.”
The Final Decision
Based on these findings, the High Court acquitted all five appellants of the charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and the Indian Penal Code, including murder (302), attempting murder (307), and waging war (121).
However, the court upheld the fact of recovery of the prohibited items from the accused during their arrest. The judgment noted that the recovered items (AK-47 rifles, hand grenades, magazines) are “prohibited ammunition” under Section 2(1)(h) and 2(b) of the Arms Act.
The court found the appellants were in “conscious possession” of these items in violation of Section 7 of the Arms Act. Therefore, the bench convicted all five under Section 25(1-A) of the Arms Act.
The appellants were sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh each. The court directed that the period of imprisonment already undergone shall be adjusted towards this sentence.
