Altaf vs State of U.P.

Hon'Ble Siddhartha Varma, J.

Hon'Ble Achal Sachdev, J.

These appeals had been preferred against the judgment and order dated 30.3.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Saharanpur in Sessions Trial No.284 of 2011 convicting the appellants Altaf and Sanjeev and sentencing them under section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code for life with a fine of Rs.50,000/- each and in the event of default of payment they had to undergo one year's additional imprisonment. The appellant-Altaf was also sentenced under section 4/25 of the Arms Act for one year imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment he had to undergo one month's additional imprisonment.

The brief facts of the case are that when an incident had occurred on 8.2.2011 at around 11.45 PM, wherein Shabbir son of Shafiq was murdered, Kallu, the first informant had lodged a First Information Report at around 1.05 AM on 9.2.2011. It was stated in the FIR that outside the ALM Meat Factory, Harora wherein Kallu was a Supervisor, on 8.2.2011, Shabbir and Jamal who had gone to see off their brother at Saharanpur were attacked at 11.45 PM by two miscreants. Shabbir and Jamal were stopped and Shabbir was stabbed because of which he got injured. Jamal, however, raised a hue and cry and reached near the gate of the ALM Meat Factory, where he found Sattar s/o Sharif and Sadaqat s/o Liyakat and other workers of the factory. However, the accused who were two in number escaped towards the jungle in the north. The two who had escaped were seen by those who had collected around Shabbir, in the electricity and torch light and it was further stated that if the two accused came before them then they would be able to recognise them. The injured Shabbir, who was taken to the government hospital at Saharanpur died there and, therefore, Kallu, the informant, had come over to the police station to get the FIR lodged. The scribe of the FIR was one Sanavvar Ali.

On 14.2.2011, on the information given by an informer (Mukhbir Khas), a police team comprising the S.O. Hukum Singh; Sub-Inspector Yashpal Singh; Sub-Inspector Sunil Dutt; Constable Shaukeen; Constable Harendra and Constable Yashpal in Jeep No.UP 11 AG 0003 headed towards the village Harora and on the pointing of the informer, they found that three persons were sitting outside a power house which was still under construction. Upon seeing the police, the three persons who were sitting outside the power house, suddenly attempted to escape. However, they were apprehended. Upon asking their names, one of them told that he was Altaf s/o Abbas, resident of Harora, District Saharanpur and from his pant, a SIM wrapped in a paper, was recovered. Upon putting it in the phone, it was discovered that it had a number 9760082093. From the pant of Sanjeev Kumar, another person who was apprehended, a mobile phone having number 9536495241 was recovered. Altaf upon being interrogated, told that he along with Sanjeev Kumar and Sumit Kumar had tried to extract Rs.20 lacs from the owner of the ALM Meat Factory but when the owner Haji Tasleem did not accede to their demand then only to create a terror they had killed a labourer outside the factory. He had stated that he had killed the labourer with a knife which he had, after being used, washed it and had buried it in the mango grove of one Ali Gauhar. In the presence of Naim and Rehan Ahmad, two independent witnesses, the recovery of the knife was made. The recovered knife was buried under the ground and it was covered by a blue polythene. The recovery memo of the knife was prepared and also an FIR under section 4/25 of the Arms Act vis.-a-vis. accused Altaf; under section 302 IPC vis.-a-vis. Altaf and Sanjeev Kumar and under section 386 IPC vis.-a-vis. Altaf, Sanjeev Kumar and Sumit Kumar was registered. The FIR under section 386 IPC which had given rise to Case Crime No.27/11 was already registered from before.

Thereafter further investigation was made and the soil laden with blood and one which had no blood was collected. The panchayatnama of the deceased was also conducted on 9.2.2011 and thereafter a post mortem was conducted on the dead body of Shabbir and the cause of death was shown to be shock and hemorrhage due to ante-mortem injuries. The soil which had blood; the knife; pant; shirt and jacket were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. Upon the completion of the investigation, a police report was sent to the Court and the Court vis-a-vis. Sanjeev Kumar and Altaf framed charges under sections 302 read with section 34 IPC. When they denied the charges, trial commenced. So far as Altaf was concerned, another charge was framed under section 25/4 of the Arms Act.

Before the Court, to prove the case of the prosecution, as many as 13 prosecution witnesses were examined.

PW-1 was the first informant Kallu and he had stated, in his examination-in-chief, that he had not seen the persons who had stabbed the deceased. However, he had stated that Riyasat; Sabbar, Sadakat, Arif and Sahabuddin had informed him that Shabbir was killed by a knife. After the injured was taken to the hospital he had died. Thereafter, the first informant Kallu along with the scribe Sanavvar went to the police station to lodge the FIR. He had proven the FIR in the Court. In the cross-examination he had stated that he had been a Supervisor in the ALM Meat Factory for the past eight years and in the factory 920 people were working. The factory was situate in around 20-25 bighas of land. The record of entry and exit of all the labourers was kept in a register and that the factory had 40 chowkidars. The deceased Shabbir, he had stated, had started working in the factory for the past three years and that his name was very much entered in the factory register and also in the register of the Supervisor. Jamal, he had stated in the cross-examination, did not work in the factory. This question was asked because Shabbir after having dropped his brother had come towards the factory along with Jamal who has been examined as PW-5 in the Court. He had stated that there were four mango groves near the factory premises. Upon being asked as to who had informed him about the incident, he had answered that it was Sadakat (PW-3) who had informed him about the incident on phone. It may be noted that the PW-1 when had got the FIR lodged had stated that when Jamal had raised a hue and cry then Sattar and Sadakat (PW-3) had come at the factory gate along with other persons whose names he did not remember. On that particular date, the PW-1 had stated that he had already left for hospital from his house which was in Saharanpur. Why this fact that he had left for the hospital from his house which he had told to the police was not mentioned in the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C., he did not know.

PW-2 was one Mohd. Asif and he had stated that he was working in the ALM Factory for the past 6-7 years and was also knowing the accused Altaf and had stated that he had, sometime back, been running a tea shop outside the factory. He had then stated that on 8.2.2011 at around 11.30 -11.45 PM while he was inside the Gate No.5 of the factory, he had heard some screaming etc. Thereafter Munna (Jamal PW-5)had come towards the Gate No.5 and there was enough light at the place. He had stated that he had seen Altaf with a knife in his hand. He had further stated that Sanjeev who was present in the Court had held Shabbir from the back and Altaf had stabbed Shabbir on the neck. He had stated that he had recognized the accused. He had further stated that the accused Sanjeev was having a tea stall outside the gate of the factory and, therefore, he knew about him. He had further stated that apart from him at the spot, were Sahabuddin and many other persons and had further stated that Shabbir, before the incident had occurred, had gone to Saharanpur to drop his brother. In the cross-examination, he had stated that ALM factory was an abattoir. How many people had worked there, he had no idea. He had told himself to be also a Supervisor in the factory and was doing the work of receiving material etc. and he was getting a salary of Rs.6000/- and that he was still working in the factory. He had very categorically stated that his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded after two days of the incident and on the date when his statement was recorded, the statements of Sattar and Sahabuddin were also recorded (i.e. to say that the statements of Sattar and Sahabuddin were also recorded after two days of the incident). The PW-2 when was confronted with his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C., he had stated that he did not know as to why the following facts were not mentioned in his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. :-

The accused was having a tea stall in front of the factory;

Munna @ Jamal had come running to Gate No.5 and he had told that the miscreants had held Shabbir and therefore guards had been called and along with the guards, he had gone to the place of incident;

He had told the daroga that from the side of mango grove, he had heard screams of Shabbir;

He had a torch in his hand;

He had also stated that there was a knife in the hand of Altaf;

Sanjeev had held Shabbir from behind;

Sanjeev used to come to a tea stall opposite the Gate No.5; and

Sanjeev had gone to Saharanpur to drop his brother.

All these above facts as per PW-2 were though stated in the Court, were not mentioned in the statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C.

PW-3 was Sadakat Ali and his name found mention in the FIR when the FIR was lodged and in it, it was mentioned that Sadakat along with Sattar had reached the place of incident at the time when the accused had escaped in the jungle. He had denied that he had gone to the place of incident. He had only stated that PW-5 Munna @ Jamal had come shouting that Shabbir had been held by certain miscreants. He, upon saying that he had never been to the place of incident, was declared hostile. In the cross-examination, he had stated that the police had not recorded any statement of his under section 161 Cr.P.C. He had stated that he was surprised to notice that a statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the police. In the statement, which he denied and was allegedly recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., it was stated that Jamal PW-5 had told the PW-3 that his uncle Shabbir had been held by two miscreants and was being stabbed and he (PW-5 Jamal) had escaped somehow from the place of incident.

PW-4 was Sahabuddin. He had alleged that he was the person who used to supply animals to the factory where animals were cut. He had stated that he had reached the place of incident at around 11.45 on 8.2.2011 and he was taking down the animals from his vehicle and at that moment at Gate No.5, Jamal who was the nephew of the deceased came running and told the PW-4 Sahabuddin, Sattar (not examined), Sadakat (PW-3 who turned hostile) and Asif (PW-2) about the incident and they were informed of how the miscreants had attacked Shabbir and were stabbing him. Upon this, PW-4 had stated that he reached the place of incident and saw Altaf with a knife in his hand and saw that he was stabbing Shabbir. Sanjeev had held Shabbir from the back and upon seeing him (PW-4), Altaf ran away from the place of incident. He had stated that he had recognized Altaf and Sanjeev in the torch light. Altaf was a labourer in the factory and Sanjeev was his friend and, therefore, he recognised them both. Altaf's father had a tea stall outside the factory. In the cross-examination, he had affirmed the purpose for which he used to visit the factory and had stated that when the animals were sold, he had to get a receipt and when the animals entered the factory, this fact was also entered in a logbook and the vehicle number was also written in that very logbook. However, he stated that he could not place the receipt of the animals which he had sold on that day. He also told that the registration number of the vehicle by which he had taken the animals, he did not remember. He had also very categorically stated that his statement was also recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. after two days of the incident. He was also surprised as to why the following facts were not mentioned in his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. :-

Upon reaching the spot, he had found that Altaf had a knife in his hand and was stabbing Shabbir;

Sanjeev was holding Shabbir from the behind and upon seeing the PW-4, both the accused had run away;

The father of Altaf was also working in the factory and, therefore, he knew him;

Altaf and Sanjeev had assailed Shabbir with an intention to kill him;

The two accused had run away on seeing the PW-4 towards the jungle and that he had not chased the accused persons.

He then had stated that what he had not stated and was reportedly mentioned in the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. was that Shabbir was taken in his vehicle from the factory to the hospital.

PW-5 was Jamal and his name found mention in the FIR where the informant had stated that Shabbir and Jamal had come back to the factory after Shabbir had seen off his brother at Saharanpur. He had stated that Shabbir had gone to Saharanpur to drop his brother and when Shabbir and he himself i.e. PW-5 had come back to the factory, it was almost 11.45 and it was then that two persons pulled them towards the grove and Shabbir, the uncle of the PW-5, was pulled by the collar and the PW-5 was pulled by his hand. PW-5 had tried to release himself from the hold of the accused. However, Altaf stabbed Shabbir with his knife and he (PW-5) ran towards the factory. He had stated that he had seen the accused in the electricity and torch lights. Thereafter Shabbir was taken to the hospital in an injured state where he was declared dead. He had stated that the murderers were 25-30 years of age and had stated that both of them were in the Court on the date he was testifying. He pointed towards Altaf and stated that he was the person who had stabbed Shabbir and the person who had held him was Sanjeev Kumar. He had stated in his cross-examination that he was working in the canteen of the factory and the working hours were 9.00 in the morning to 7.00 in the evening. He had stated that Shabbir was taken in the vehicle of the company to the government hospital. He had stated that he was kept in the Thana for two days and thereafter he had gone to his home in Saharanpur. He wondered as to why the following statements which he had made before the police were not mentioned in his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. :-

The two accused persons had held them. One had held the uncle by the collar and the other had held the PW-5 by his hand;

Also, it was not mentioned that Altaf had stabbed his uncle. He also mentioned that he was surprised as to why the source of light was not mentioned.

PW-6 was the scribe of the FIR namely Sanavvar Ali. He had stated that what was dictated to him by Kallu, he had written. In the cross examination, he had admitted that he had not seen the incident. He had also stated that his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 12.2.2011 i.e. almost after four days after the incident.

PW-7 was the factory owner. He had in his statement-in-chief stated that his mobile number was 9837019192 and that on 1.2.2011 at around 11.30 AM and on 6.2.2011 at around 3.00 PM, he had received threatening calls. However, he did not remember the phone numbers from which he had received the calls. He had stated that the telephone calls had come from the accused who was present in the Court namely Sanjeev and he knew that person and he also recognised his voice. He had stated that Sanjeev and Altaf quite often used to go for outings around the factory. Altaf used to work earlier in the factory and therefore he knew him. He had stated that Sanjeev had demanded Rs.20 lacs illegally from him and had threatened that if he did not give that amount then he would kill him. On 8.2.2011 Shabbir was killed outside his factory by two persons. On 10.2.2011 at around 9.00 PM, he had received a call on his mobile from number 9760082093 and again a demand of Rs.20 lacs was made and it was stated that if he did not give the money then in the same manner as Shabbir was killed, others would also be killed. He then stated that the person who was calling from the other side was Altaf and that the recording was sent by him to the police. When he refused the payment of Rs.20 lacs on the pretext that his bhabhi was unwell then the accused had stated that if he was not able to give Rs.20 lacs then at least 5 lacs be given. He stated that both Altaf and Sanjeev had tried to create terror outside the factory. On 11.2.2011 his bhabhi, however, had died. In the cross-examination, he had stated that the report was got registered by Kallu and he was at that point of time i.e. on 8th, 9th and 10th of February, 2011, in Delhi. He had stated that he had no knowledge as to whether Altaf's father was running a tea shop outside the factory. He had stated that he had informed the police that from the other side Sanjeev was speaking and demanding the money on phone.

PW-8 Mohd. Rihan was the witness who had allegedly gone to recover the knife along with the police and he had narrated the manner in which the knife was recovered. He had also stated that he had reached the factory to sell some animals. However, he could not tell as to whether any receipt etc. was with him of the sale which he had done. He had stated that he had not seen any blood on the knife which was recovered. He had further stated that his statement was recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. on 21.2.2011.

PW-9 was Dr. Akhil Tandon, the physician in district hospital Muzaffarnagar. He had stated about the injuries on the dead body and had also stated the manner in which he had conducted the post mortem.

PW-10 was the Investigating Officer Yashpal Singh and he had mentioned the manner in which the investigation was done. He had also specially mentioned about the recovery of the SIM cards.

PW-11 was Sub-Inspector Hukum Singh. He had also been the Investigating Officer in the case. He had stated that there was no electricity light at the place of incident. He had also stated that the material exhibit of the recovery of the mobile and the SIM was not produced before the Court. He had very categorically stated that he had not identified the accused. He had also stated that he had not taken any voice sample of the accused. This portion of the statement is being reproduced here as under : -

PW-12 was one Asharam and he had proved the chik etc.

PW-13 was Rajpal Singh, HCP Gagalhedi, District Saharanpur and he was the Investigating Officer in the Arms Act case.

Upon the conclusion of the recording of the statements of the prosecution witnesses, the statements of the accused Altaf and Sanjeev under section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. In his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused Altaf had stated that he had a tea stall and also a house opposite the factory gate and the shop was got closed by the owner of the factory. Similarly, Sanjeev had also in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. stated that he was picked up from his house and was wrongly implicated in the case.

A defence witness being DW-1 Narendra had come in the witness box and stated that Sanjeev was his brother-in-law (sala) and that he had come over to his house on the date of incident. On the relevant date i.e. on 12.2.2011, 4-5 police personnel had come to his house and had picked Sanjeev from there.

Thereafter when the accused were found guilty and were convicted under section 302 IPC read with section 34 IPC and under section 25/4 of the Arms Act by the judgment and order dated 30.3.2016, two appeals were filed; one being Criminal Appeal No.2295 of 2016 by Sanjeev and another being Criminal Appeal No.2597 of 2016 of Altaf. Both the appeals were consolidated and were heard together.

Sri Pradeep Kumar Mishra, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant-Altaf and Sri Dhiraj Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant-Sanjeev have made the following submissions :

If the FIR is perused then it becomes certain that no accused was named in it. The FIR was lodged on 9.2.2011 at 1.05 AM and till the lodging of the FIR, no one was aware of the fact as to who was the person who had killed the deceased. However, on account of certain enmity etc. with the two accused namely Altaf and Sanjeev, they were implicated subsequently after the statements of Mohd. Asif (PW-2), Sahabuddin (PW-4) and Mohd. Rihan (PW-8) was got recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. very belatedly. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that if these were the persons who were allegedly there at the place of incident then they could have definitely, at that point of time itself, revealed the names of the accused. Because they had not mentioned their names at the right moment, it definitely becomes certain that after a much thought out exercise, their names were introduced through the PW-2-Mohd. Asif, PW-4-Sahabuddin and Mohd. Rihan (PW-8).

The PW-5 Jamal whose name was also mentioned in the FIR, as per his statement in the Court, he had been detained by the police for two days in the police station. However, it is strange that he did not mention the names of the accused despite the fact that he had recognized them in the Court during the time his testimony was being recorded.

When the appellants were not named in the FIR and subsequently the names surfaced, then it was the duty of the Investigating Agency to have conducted a Test Identification Parade before their names were openly discussed and taken in the Court. This having not been done, it was a definite case of false implication. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellants further relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in (2022) 9 SCC 402 : Amrik Singh vs. State of Punjab and submitted that it would be unsafe to convict an accused solely on the basis of his identification for the first time in the Court. Learned counsel for the appellant further to bolster his case with regard to the fact that the identification of the accused for the first time in Court was a weak piece of evidence, relied upon (1979) 3 SCC 319 : Kanan and others vs. State of Kerala and submitted that identification by a witness of the accused in Court raises a serious doubt and his testimony must be excluded. Still further he relied upon (1971) 2 SCC 715 : Rameshwar Singh vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and submitted that if the accused was not previously known to the witness then an identification parade ought to have preceded the dock identification. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that though as per the decision of the Supreme Court in (2003) 5 SCC 746 : Malkhan Singh and Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh evidence in Court was a substantive evidence but he submits, relying on the very same case law that if the recognition in the Court by the prosecution witness of the accused was not preceded by a test identification then the evidence would be categorized as a weak evidence. No or little weight should be attached to the evidence of identification in Court, which is not preceded by a test identification parade.

Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that Sattar was the person whose name was mentioned very categorically in the FIR that he was there when a hue and cry was raised by Jamal but he was never examined in the Court. Also, learned counsel submits that Sattar's name was mentioned in the FIR and therein it was also stated that he (Sattar) reached the place of incident along with the PW-3 Sadakat. Quite interestingly PW-3 had turned hostile and he had actually stated that he had never been at the place of incident.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there was on record an FSL report which had seen blood on the knife and had also tested the same and it found that it had disintegrated. However, the statements of all the witnesses had been that no blood was there on the knife and in fact the PW-1 had gone to the extent of saying that when the appellant was arrested, he had given a statement that he had washed the knife with water. Learned counsel for the appellants, therefore, submits that every effort was made to garner evidence falsely.

Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that in the case at hand when Altaf was arrested, he was arrested with a SIM Card No.9760082093 and Sanjeev Kumar was arrested with SIM having number 9536495241. However, these were, though recovered, were never exhibited and produced in the Court. Strangely enough even the factory owner Taslim Kamal (PW-7) had stated that he had received a phone call from number 9760082093 but neither was any voice sampling done of the recorded CD he had claimed was of Altaf nor was any effort made to actually test the voice sample.

If the evidence as was there on record is perused, it becomes abundantly clear that apart from the PW-1, the statements of almost all the prosecution witnesses namely Mohd. Arif, Sahabuddin, Jamal, Sanavvar Ali, Tasleem Kamal (factory owner) were recorded after much delay. Learned counsel stated that the Statement of PW-2 Mohd. Asif was recorded after two days of the incident; the statement of PW-3 Sadakat was recorded after quite a gap; the statement of PW-4 Sahabuddin was recorded after two days of the incident; the statement of PW-5 Jamal was also recorded after two days; the statement of PW-6 was recorded on 12.2.2011 i.e. almost after four days and the statement of PW-7 Tasleem Kamal was recorded on 21.2.2011. Learned counsel for the appellants, therefore, relying upon Harbeer Singh vs. Sheesh Pal reported in (2016) 16 SCC 418 submitted that the statements recorded belatedly were of no use and were so recorded only to bring in the names of the accused on record and to create further evidence by introducing new eye witnesses. The fact of the matter was that immediately after recording of the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C., when the names were not known, then a complete exercise was undergone afresh after much thinking to name the appellants as accused. Even in the FIR, there was no mention of any accused. What is more, in the Court, the prosecution witnesses namely PW-2 Mohd. Asif, PW-4 Sahabuddin and PW-5 Jamal had very categorically mentioned that certain things which they had told the police was not mentioned in the statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. All these, as per learned counsel for appellants, went to indicate that the police had only very slyly introduced the names of the appellants and only to make out a case, eye-witnesses were created.

Sri Sayeed Saif Ullah, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Ajay Kumar Sharma, learned AGA for the State have, however, submitted that when there were almost four eye-witnesses and when the eye-witnesses had mentioned the names of the accused persons then there was absolutely no reason to disbelieve the eye-witnesses. Learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA state that in the case where the eye-witness accounts were there, they should not be taken lightly and a definite conclusion should be arrived at against the accused.

In the instant case, learned counsel for the informant, further submits that even the PW-7, who was the factory owner, had gone to the extent of saying that he had voice recording and they were of the appellants and thus there was no reason to find fault with the judgment of the Court below.

Having heard learned counsel for the appellants; learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant, we are of the view that initially the FIR which was lodged on 9.2.2011 at 1.05 AM did not contain the names of any of the accused persons. The names of the eye-witnesses were mentioned whose statements had not been recorded immediately after the incident but were so recorded almost after two or even more days. This as per the judgment of the Supreme Court Harbeer Singh vs. Sheesh Pal reported in (2016) 16 SCC 418 definitely makes us believe that the police was concocting a case and was trying to implicate the appellants in the incident. What is more, if the PW-1 was not aware of the names of the accused and had not mentioned them even in the FIR but had stated that he could recognize them if they were brought before him, then it was imperative that a test identification parade ought to have been held. This having not been done, the witnesses were unbelievable. We find support from the judgments of Amrik Singh vs. State of Punjab : (2022) 9 SCC 402 and Kanan and others vs. State of Kerala : (1979) 3 SCC 319. The further case of the appellants that what they wanted to state in the statements recorded before the police had gone unrecorded by the police also goes to show that the police had created all the evidence sitting in the police station. Still further, we find that the PW-7 had stated that he had voice recording of the accused persons demanding money but no voice sampling was done and also no comparison of the voice in the recording with the voices of the appellants was done. The story of knife being recovered appears to be doubtful. The prosecution witnesses themselves had stated that they had found the knife washed with water. The Court cannot understand as to how when the knife was washed with water and thereafter was recovered, the investigation had sent it for forensic science laboratory test where they had found blood and had also tested it. It matters little that blood was disintegrated. The very fact that the prosecution case was that the blood had been washed and still blood was being found and also being sent to the FSL shows the extent of tampering done with the evidence by the police, and it can be said that it was not just a minor tampering but the tampering has led the Court to believe that the investigation was in the hands of a very puerile police which requires proper training. The police also, we find, had after the PW-1 had not given out the names either in the FIR or in the statement, recorded the statements of the other prosecution witnesses and had introduced the names therein. We are, thus, convinced that the police had botched up the entire investigation and somehow tried to only implicate the appellants.

Under such circumstances, the appeals deserve to be allowed and are, accordingly, allowed. The judgment and order dated 30.3.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Saharanpur in Sessions Trial No.284 of 2011 is quashed. The appellants in both the appeals are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. The appellant-Altaf in Criminal Appeal No.2597 of 2016 is in jail. He be released forthwith, if not required in any other criminal case. The appellant-Sanjeev in Criminal Appeal No.2295 of 2016, as per the office report dated 30.3.2026, is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are hereby discharged.

Sri Pradeep Kumar Mishra, learned Amicus Curiae for his hard work be paid a sum of Rs.25,000/- by the High Court Legal Services Authority. The Registrar General to oversee the payment.