IRFAN AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P.

                                                AFR
                                 Judgement Reserved on 26.02.2026
                                Judgement Delivered on 18.03.2026

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                  CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7645 of 2017

Irfan and 2 others
                                                       …..Appellant(s)

                               Versus

State of U.P.
                                                   …..Respondent(s)


Counsel for Appellant(s)        : Najakat Ali, Nazrul Islam Jafri,
                                  Nazrul Islam Jafri(senior Adv.),
                                  Rajrshi Gupta, Rizwan Ahamad,
                                  Swati Agrawal Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s)       : G.A., Zafar Abbas, Zafeer Ahmad


Court No. - 48

            HON'BLE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.
            HON'BLE DEVENDRA SINGH-I, J.

                Per: Hon’ble Chandra Dhari Singh, J

1.    This Criminal Appeal has been filed against a
judgement and order dated 28.11.2017 passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Rampur in ST No. 524 of 2013
arising out of case crime No. 72 of 2013, under Sections
302, 120B, 506 IPC, police station Bhot, District Rampur
                             2

whereby the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the
appellants as under:

     (a)   Accused- Faeem to life imprisonment and a fine
     of Rs. 20,000/- under Section 302 IPC and in default
     of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple
     imprisonment for a period of six monts.

     (b)   Accused-Irfan and Saleem to life imprisonment
     and a fine of Rs. 20,000/- each under Section 302
     read with Section 120-B IPC and in default of
     payment of fine, the accused Irfan and Saleem shall
     further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
     six months.

2.   However, by the same impugned judgement and
order, the learned Judge acquitted accused Irfan, Faeem
and Saleem under Section 506 IPC.

Facts of the case

3.   The facts that formed the bedrock of the present
criminal appeal are that a written report was filed by the
first informant Mohammad Yusuf, son of Laddan, resident
of village Patthar Kheda, police station Bhot, district
Rampur at police station Bhot on 09.03.2013 with the
allegations that on 07.03.2013, his nephew Mohammad
Rafi, aged about 25 years, son of late Mohammad Yunus,
resident of village Patthar Kheda, was returning to Patthar
Kheda from village Khaudpura by his motorcycle No. UP-
22F/4481 and when he reached near culvert of village
Kaudpura at about 07:00 AM, accused Irfan, Mohammad
Faeem, son of Saleem and Saleem, son of Shaukat Ali,
                                 3

resident   of    village    Nagla    Ganesh,    Police     Station
Azimnagar, district Rampur, who were having animosity
from before and had also earlier attacked, on 07.03.2013
with an intention to kill, accused Faeem, in connivance
with accused Irfan and Saleem ran over Mohammad Rafi
(hereinafter referred to as the deceased) by tractor No.
UP-23E/1142, as a result thereof he received fractures in
his leg and hand and injuries on his head. The incident
was witnessed by Iftekhar Hussain and Arshad Ali, who
were going to village Kishanpur by a motorcycle, who
informed the first informant. With the help of above
persons, the first informant took his nephew to the
District Hospital, Rampur, where he died. The first
information     report     further   recounts   that     the   first
informant was informed by the persons present at the
spot that the incident was caused with an intention to kill
and the accused persons had also threatened the
witnesses of dire consequences.

4.   On the basis of the aforesaid written report made by
the first informant, a case was registered at Case Crime
No. 72 of 2013, under Sections 302, 120-B and 506 IPC at
police station Bhot, district Rampur against accused Irfan,
Faeem and Saleem, which was entered in GD No. 14 on
09.03.2013 at 08:20 hours.

5.   After registration of the case, the law set into motion
and investigation of the case was taken up by PW-6,
Baljeet Singh. He copied the FIR in the case diary and
prepared site plan on the pointing out of the first
informant, Ext. Ka-10. He also collected pieces of plain
                             4

concrete and bloodstained concrete from the spot and
also recovered motorcycle bearing registration No. UP-
22F/4481 of the deceased and took into possession and
also prepared recovery memo, Ext. Ka-2. He also took into
possession Tractor No. UP 23E/1142 along with trolley
allegedly used in the commission of the crime from the
house of the accused persons and prepared recovery
memo (Ext. Ka-11). On 12.3.2013, the investigating
officer arrested accused-Irfan and recorded his statement
in the case diary. On 18.03.2013, the investigating officer
perused the inquest and postmortem report and entered
the contents of the same in the case diary and thereafter
recorded the statement of eyewitness of the occurrence
namely Iftekhar Husain and Arshad Ali in the case diary.
On 18.04.2013, he recorded the statement of accused
Faeem and Saleem in the case diary and thereafter he
again interrogated the first informant and recorded the
technical inspection report of the tractor-trolley. On
16.5.2013, the investigating officer sent the materials
related to the crime to the Forensic Science Laboratory,
Agra and made necessary entries in the case diary. After
completing    the   necessary    formalities   and    after
culmination of investigation, the investigating officer,
submitted charge sheet against the accused Irfan, Faeem
and Saleem under Sections 302, 120-B and 506 IPC,
which he proved as Ext. Ka.12.

6.   As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of
Sessions, the learned Magistrate, committed the case to
the Court of Sessions where case was registered as ST No.
                                5

524 of 2013. Learned Sessions Judge, Rampur vide order
dated   06.01.2014     framed       the     charges    against    the
accused-appellants     Faeem,       Irfan    and    Saleem    under
Sections 120-B, 302 and 506 IPC, which were read over
and explained to them, who denied the charges levelled
against them and claimed to be tried.

7.    To bring home guilt of the appellants beyond the hilt,
the   prosecution    has examined           as many as        seven
witnesses, out of whom, PW-1 Mohammad Yusuf is the
first informant, PW-2, Iftekhar Husain and PW-3 Arshad Ali
are eyewitness of the occurrence and remaining are
formal one.

8.    PW-1, Mohammad Yusuf is the first informant of the
case. He reiterated the versions given in the FIR. He
further stated on oath that tractor was being driven by
accused Faeem, whereas accused Irfan and Saleem were
sitting on the mudguards of the tractor. On seeing the
deceased, accused Saleem and Irfan asked Faeem to run
over the deceased. Thereupon, accused Faeem crushed
the deceased, due to which deceased sustained grievous
injuries on his leg, hand and head. The occurrence was
witnessed     by   Iftekhar   Husain        and    Arshad   Ali   and
thereafter they also informed him. He further deposed
that on being informed, he reached the spot and took the
deceased to the District Hospital, Rampur where he
breathed his last. He also deposed that written report of
the incident was scribed by a person of Bhot on his
dictation and he put his signature on it. He proved the
written report as Ext. Ka.1.
                             6

9.   This witness is not the eye witness of the occurrence
and on being cross examined, he stated that when the
incident took place, he was at his house at Pattharkheda
and the incident did not take place in his presence.

10. PW-2     Iftekhar   Husain   has    deposed    in   his
examination-in-chief that on 07.03.2013 at about 07.:00
AM he along with Arshad Ali was going to Kishanpur from
Sankara by motorcycle and when they reached just
before the culvert of Khaudpura, they saw Rafi coming by
motorcycle and a tractor which was being driven by
accused Faeem was going from east side and Faeem ran
the tractor over Mohammad Rafi with an intention to kill
him. Rafi sustained injuries and motorcycle was also
crushed. He further deposed that injured Rafi was rushed
to the hospital, where he succumbed to the injuries. This
witness also deposed that he did not know about enmity
of the accused persons with the deceased and that
deceased-Rafi was trying to escape, but accused-Faeem
ran tractor over him. Irfan and Saleem were sitting on the
mudguards of the tractor and instigating accused-Faeem.

11. PW-3, Arshad Ali in his examination-in-chief        has
reiterated the facts mentioned by PW-2, Iftekhar Husain in
his examination-in-chief. He further deposed that the
tractor was being driven by accused Faeem, who ran
tractor over the deceased-Rafi at the instance of Irfan and
Saleem. He also deposed that thereafter accused-Faeem
moved the tractor back side and again ran over the
deceased with an intention to kill him due to some
enmity.
                                7

12. PW-4, SI Pankaj Kumar, in his examination-in-chief
deposed that on 07.3.2013, he was posted at Police
Station Bhot as Sub-Inspector. On that date, he prepared
inquest   report    of   the   deceased   and   other   related
documents and sealed the dead body and sent it for post-
mortem examination through Constable Jagveer Singh
and Home Guard Lakhan. He also proved inquest report,
letter to RI, Challan Lash, letter to the Chief Medical
Officer, photo lash and specimen of seal as Ext. Ka-3 to
Ext. Ka-8.

13. PW-5, Dr. Vinod Kumar Mishra, deposed that on
07.3.2013, he was posted as Medical Officer at District
Hospital, Rampur. On that date, he conducted autopsy on
the cadaver between 2:30 PM and 03:10 PM. He further
deposed that the deceased was admitted to the District
Hospital at 07:40 AM on 07.3.2013 and died on the same
day at 08:40 AM. Doctor found the following ante-mortem
injuries on the body of the deceased:

     1.      Stitched wound 19 cm long on right side of face
     and head with six stitches. After removing stitches
     the wound was located 10 cm x 0.5 cm x bone deep.
     Blood was clotted.
     2.      Lacerated wound 3 cm x 0.5 cm scalp deep on
     top of head, 9 cm above right ear.
     3.      Contusion 4 cm x 3 cm on dorsum of right
     hand, just below the wrist joint and metacarpal bone
     was found fractured.
     4.      Multiple abraded contusion in area of 14 cm x 8
     cm on front of right knee joint and right lower leg.
                               8

      5.   Traumatic swelling 10 cm x 6 cm on anterior
      medial aspect of right thigh.
      6.   Abrasion 3 cm x 1.5 cm on posterior aspect of
      right lower leg, just above the ankle joint.

14. On internal examination, PW-5, Dr. Vinod Kumar
Mishra found that brain was congested and a large sized
haematoma was found present on the right temporal
parietal regions of skull. Lungs were congested, right
chamber of heart was filled with blood, while the other
chamber was empty. Liver, spleen and kidneys were
congested.

15. In the opinion of the doctor, the deceased died due
to coma as a result of head injury. The above ante-
mortem injuries of the deceased were possible to cause
on 07.3.2013 at 07:00 AM by hard and blunt object, such
as crushing by tractor. He proved his postmortem report
as Ext. Ka-9.

16. PW-6, Inspector Baljeet Singh is the investigating
officer of the case, who conducted investigation and
submitted charge sheet against the accused-appellants.
His evidence in detail has already been discussed above.

17. PW-7, Dr. Sanjiv Manglik, in his evidence has
deposed that on 07.3.2013, he was posted at District
Hospital, Rampur as Senior Surgeon and he was on
emergency duty. At 07:40 AM, he examined injured-
Mohammad Rafi (deceased), aged about 25 years, who
was    brought    by   his   father   and   during   medical
examination, he found that the patient was unconscious
                              9

and his general condition was very serious and his blood
pressure was unable to be recorded. Doctor found the
following injuries on his person:

     “1.   A deep lacerated wound 6.0 cm x 2.0 cm on
     right side of head in parietal region.
     2.    There was fracture in right wrist joint.
     3.    A fracture was present at thigh on right side.”

18. In the opinion of the doctor, above injuries were
possible to sustain on 07.3.2013 at 07:00 AM by
hitting/crushing by a tractor and at the time of medical
examination, the condition of the injured was critical.

19. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the
statement of the accused-appellants were recorded under
Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which they denied the charges
levelled against them and stated that they have been
falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. However,
they stated that Laddan, the father of the first informant
Mohammad Yusuf, was murdered in the year 1995, who
had two sons namely Mohammd Yusuf and Mohammad
Yunus. Mohammad Yunus died leaving his two sons,
namely     Mohammad        Rafi and     Mohammad      Rauf.
Mohammad Yusuf ousted Mohammad Rauf from the
house and Mohammad Rafi was killed through accident
and FIR was lodged against them and 70 bigha of land of
Laddan including the land of Mohammad Rafi and
Mohammad Rauf was usurped by the first informant on
the basis of forged and unregistered Will in the year 2015
and the accused persons have been implicated in this
false case of murder.
                             10

20. In defence, the accused persons have examined DW-
1, Firasat Husain. In his evidence, DW-1, Firasat deposed
that on 07.3.2913 at about 07:00 hours he was going to
village Bhot by his car to drop his children at St. Marry
School and when he reached just ahead of the first
culvert of Khaudpura, ahead of his car, a young man was
going towards village Thunapur by motorcycle and when
the young man reached near second culvert, a tractor
trolley loaded with sugar cane, coming from the side of
Thunapur, hit the motorcycle and in this accident the
motorcyclist was seriously injured. This witness stopped
his car and saw the injured. Passer-by also stopped there.
In the meantime, the first informant (Mohammad Yusuf)
resident of village Pattharkheda came there and carried
the injured towards police station.

21. Learned Sessions Judge, Rampur after hearing the
learned counsel for the parties and assessing, evaluating
and scrutinizing the evidence on record, convicted and
sentenced the accused-appellant as indicated herein
above.

22. Hence, this appeal.

Submissions on behalf of the appellants

23. Mrs. Swati Agrawal Srivastava, learned counsel for
the appellants submits that there was an inordinate and
unexplained delay of two days in lodging the first
information report as the first information report of the
incident, which took place at about 07:00 AM on
07.3.2013 was lodged at 08:20 AM on 09.3.2013 for
                             11

which no plausible explanation has been tendered by the
prosecution.

24. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits
that it was an accidental death, which has been given
colour of homicidal death on account of enmity.

25. Lastly, it is submitted that PW-2, Iftekhar Husain and
PW-3,    Arshad Ali are the chance witnesses and their
presence at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful.

Submissions on behalf of the State

26. On the other hand, Shri S.K. Ojha, learned Additional
Government Advocate-Ist supported the findings of the
learned trial court by stating that the learned trial court
has correctly martialled the evidence and considered
each and every aspect of the case while convicting the
appellants.

Analysis and conclusion

27. First submission of learned counsel for the appellants
is that there was an inordinate and unexplained delay of
two days in lodging the first information report.

28. Admittedly, the first information report of the
incident, which took place at about 07:00 AM on
07.3.2013 was lodged at 08:20 AM on 09.3.2013. Before
delving into the contention of the learned counsel for the
appellants in respect of delayed lodging of the first
information report, it would be worthwhile to mention
certain pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court on the
point.
                            12

29. In Tara Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 1991 Suppl (1)
SCC 536, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:

         “It is well-settled that the delay in giving the
    FIR by itself cannot be a ground to doubt the
    prosecution case. Knowing the Indian conditions as
    they are we cannot expect these villagers to rush to
    the police station immediately after the occurrence.
    Human nature as it is, the kith and kin who have
    witnessed the occurrence cannot be expected to act
    mechanically with all the promptitude in giving the
    report to the police. At times being grief-stricken
    because of the calamity it may not immediately
    occur to them that they should give a report. After
    all it is but natural in these circumstances for them
    to take some time to go to the police station for
    giving the" report. Of course the Supreme Court as
    well as the High Courts have pointed out that in
    cases arising out of acute factions there is a
    tendency to implicate persons belonging to the
    opposite faction falsely. In order to avert the danger
    of convicting such innocent persons the courts are
    cautioned   to   scrutinise   the   evidence   of   such
    interested witnesses with greater care and caution
    and separate grain from the chaff after subjecting
    the evidence to a closer scrutiny and in doing so the
    contents of the FIR also will have to be scrutinised
    carefully. However, unless there are indications of
    fabrication, the court cannot reject the prosecution
    version as given in the FIR and later substantiated
                            13

    by the evidence merely on the ground of delay.
    These are all matters for appreciation and much
    depends on the facts and circumstances of each
    case.”

30. In Mukesh Vs. State of NCT of Delhi (2017) 6
SCC 1, Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus”

              “Delay in setting the law into motion by
         lodging of complaint in court or FIR at police
         station is normally viewed by courts with
         suspicion    because     there    is   possibility    of
         concoction of evidence against an accused.
         Therefore,   it   becomes      necessary      for    the
         prosecution to satisfactorily explain the delay.
         Whether the delay is so long as to throw a
         cloud   of   suspicion    on     the   case   of     the
         prosecution would depend upon a variety of
         factors. Even a long delay can be condoned if
         the informant has no motive for implicating the
         accused.”

31. In Palani Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2018) 15
SCALE 178, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:

              “Delay in setting the law into motion by
         lodging the complaint is normally viewed by the
         courts in suspicion because there is possibility
         of concoction of evidence against the accused.
         In such cases, it becomes necessary for the
         prosecution to satisfactorily explain the delay in
         registration of FIR. But there may be cases
                           14

         where the delay in registration of FIR is
         inevitable and the same has to be considered.
         Even a long delay can be condoned if the
         witness has no motive for falsely implicating
         the accused. In the present case, PW-1 had no
         motive to falsely implicate the accused. As
         pointed out earlier, PW-1 seeing her own son
         being brutally attacked, the effect of the
         incident on the mind of the mother cannot be
         measured. Being saddened by the death of her
         son, it must have taken sometime for PW-1 to
         come out of her shock and then proceed to
         police station to lodge the FIR. The delay of two
         and half hours in lodging the complaint and
         registration of FIR and the delay in receipt of
         the FIR by the Magistrate was rightly held as
         not fatal to the prosecution case.”

32. In Hari Lal Vs. State of Madhya Preshared (now
Chhatisgarh,) 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1124, Hon’ble
Supreme Court held as under:

         “Although there might not have been a specific
    question put to PW-9 as regards the delay in lodging
    the FIR but the fact that it was a delayed FIR cannot
    be ignored. When an FIR is delayed, in absence of
    proper explanation, the courts must be on guard and
    test the evidence meticulously to rule out possibility
    of   embellishments    in   the   prosecution   story,
    inasmuch as delay gives opportunity for deliberation
    and guess work. More so, in a case where probability
                                15

     of no one witnessing the incident is high, such as in
     a case of night occurrence in an open place or a
     public street.” (emphasis added)

33. From the perusal of the aforesaid pronouncement of
Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is clear that delay in lodging
FIR by itself cannot be ground to doubt the prosecution
case, but when FIR is delayed and there is no proper
explanation, the Court must consider the evidence
meticulously to rule out any possibility of embellishment
in the prosecution story inasmuch as delay gives an
opportunity for deliberation.

34. Before considering the argument of learned counsel
for he appellants on the point of delay in lodging the first
information report, it would be apposite to mention that
the deceased-Mohammad Rafi was admitted to the
District Hospital, Rampur in an injured condition by his
father,   the   first   informant    (Mohammad   Yusuf)   on
07.3.2013 at 07:40 AM as a case of accidental injuries
and he was medically examined by PW-7, Dr. Sanjiv
Manglic, the Medical Officer and after sometime, he died
at 08:40 AM on the same day as is evident from Ext. Ka-
16 and Ext. Ka-17.

35. Admittedly, the occurrence took place at 07:00 AM
on 07.3.2013. The first information of the incident was
lodged at 08:20 AM on 09.3.2013 after a delay of more
than 49 hours by the first informant, Mohammad Yusuf,
who is father of the deceased. The first information report
was lodged with the allegations that on 07.03.2013, his
                             16

nephew Mohammad Rafi, aged about 25 years was
returning to Patthar Kheda from village Khaudpura by his
motorcycle No. UP-22F/4481 and when he reached near
culvert of village Khaudpura at about 07:00 AM, accused
Irfan, Mohammad Faeem and Saleem, who were having
enmity from before and had also earlier attacked, on
07.03.3023 with an intention to kill, accused Faeem, in
connivance with accused Irfan and Saleem ran            over
Mohammad       Rafi,   the   deceased    by   tractor      No.
UP-23E/1142, as a result thereof he received fractures on
his leg and hand and injuries on his head. The incident
was witnessed by Iftekhar Hussain and Arshad Ali, who
were going to village Kishanpur by a motorcycle, who
informed the first informant. On receiving information, the
informant rushed to the spot and took his nephew to the
District Hospital, Rampur with the help of          Iftekhar
Hussain and Arshad Ali, where he died. It was also
mentioned in the FIR that the first informant was told by
the persons present at the spot that the incident was
caused with an intention to kill and the accused persons
had also threatened the witnesses of dire consequences.

36. PW-2, Iftekhar Hussain and PW-3, Arshad Ali in their
evidence have stated that after the incident, they took
the injured to the hospital, where he breathed his last.

37. From the cumulative perusal of the contents of the
first information report as well as evidence of PW-2,
Iftekhar Hussain and PW-3, Arshad Ali, it is evident that
after the incident, the information was given to the first
informant, who rushed to the spot and with the help of
                                 17

PW-2, Iftekhar Hussain and PW-3, Arshad Ali, he took the
injured to the hospital where he succumbed to the
injuries.

38. This Court fails to understand as to when PW-2,
Iftekhar Hussain and PW-3, Arshad Ali have seen the
occurrence and told the first information about the
incident, who also rushed to the spot and took the injured
to the hospital, why the injured was admitted to hospital
as an accidental death. Exhibit Ka-17, which was a letter
dated 07.3.2013 written by Dr. Rakesh Kumar to the In-
charge Inspector, Kotwali, Rampur informing him that one
Mohammad Rafi, aged about 28 years, son of Mohammad
Yusuf,      resident   of   Patharkheda,   police   station   Mot,
Rampur has been admitted to the District Hospital,
Rampur at 07:40 AM on 07.3.2013 as an accidental injury
case, who died at 08:40 AM on 07.3.2013 and his dead
body has been kept in mortuary.

39. So far as delay in lodging the first information report
is concerned, PW-1, Mohammad Yusuf in his cross-
examination has stated that after the incident, he had
gone to the hospital with the deceased and that he has
given report of the occurrence at the police station Bhot
on 08.3.2013. He also stated that on 09.3.2013, he was
provided copy of the report by the police. He further
stated that he has not given any report on 07.3.2013. The
explanation given by PW-1, Mohammad Yusuf for lodging
the FIR is unreasonable inasmuch as from the perusal of
Ext. Ka-1, it is very much clear that the report was given
                               18

on 09.3.2013, on the basis whereof case was registered
at 08:20 AM on 09.3.2013.

40. Moreover, PW-1, in his examination-in-chief has
stated that when he was taking the injured to the
hospital, PW-2, Iftekhar Husain, PW-3, Arshad Ali and one
another person were with him, whereas PW-2, Iftekhar
Husain in his cross-examination, which was conducted on
04.06.2015 stated that he did not take the injured to the
hospital left the place of occurrence after 15 minutes. PW-
3, Arshad Ali in his cross-examination has stated that he
did not take the injured to the hospital and left for his
village Dariyagarh.

41. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that it
was an accidental death and the accused-appellants have
falsely been dragged in this case after due deliberation
and that the first information report has been lodged after
two days for which no plausible explanation has been
tendered by the prosecution. From the nature of the
evidence placed on record by the prosecution, the
possibility   of   the   present    appellants   being   falsely
implicated on account of previous enmity cannot be ruled
out. In our opinion, therefore, the appellants are entitled
to benefit of doubt.

42. In view of the above, we are of the view that the
prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the
appellants beyond all reasonable doubt.

43. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgement
and order dated 28.11.2017 passed by the learned
                                                         19

                            Sessions Judge, Rampur in ST No. 524 of 2013 is set
                            aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges
                            levelled against them

                            44. Appellant Nos. 1 and 3 namely Irfan and Saleem are
                            on bail. Their bail bond are cancelled and sureties are
                            discharged.

                            45. Appellant No. 2, Faeem is in jail. He shall be released
                            forthwith unless wanted in any other case.

                            46. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the
                            court concerned for compliance and compliance report be
                            submitted to this Court within two months.




                                             (Devendra Singh-I,J.) (Chandra Dhari Singh,J.)

                            March 18, 2026
                            Ishrat




Digitally signed by :-
MOHAMMAD ISHRAT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad