# Irfan & Ors v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2026) 3 ILRA 447
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-03-18
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 7645 of 2017
- **Bench:** Chandra Dhari Singh, Devendra Singh-I
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/irfan-ors-v-state-of-u-p-54884
- **Pages:** 11

## Text

3 All. Irfan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
447
76. Materials pertaining to Case Crime No. 400 of 2011, under Sections 302,307, 506 and
509 IPC and 4/25 Arms Act, containing six bundles dated 10.04.2012 were sent to Forensic
Science Laboratory. Bundle No. 1 contain Trident (Trishule), Bundle No.2 Banka, Bundle No. 3,
knife, Bundle No. 4, Kurta Dhoti, Bundle No. 5, bloodstained earth and Bundle No. 6 simple earth.
Aforesaid articles were examined by PW-10, Dr. Mahesh Prasad Sharma, Deputy Director,
Forensic Science Laboratory. Articles kept in bundle Nos 1 to 6 were bloodstained. Articles kept in
bundle Nos. 4 and 5 were having large bloodstained of 5 cm. Bundle Nos. 4 to 6 contained human
blood. Blood on articles kept on bundle Nos. 1- 3 was disintegrated. Further bloodstained and
simple earth pertaining to Case Crime No. 400 of 2011, under Sections 302, 307, 506, 509 IPC was
examined by PW-11, Sudhir Kumar Jha, Senior Scientific Assistant, Lucknow. On examination,
both bloodstained and simple earth were found the same, the report whereof was Ext. Ka-21.

77. We have carefully scrutinized and examined the evidence of prosecution witnesses and
we find that they have been correctly marshalled and assessed by the kerned Trial Court. It was a
gruesome murder, which was committed in a broad day light in which the deceased was hacked to
death. In addition to the death of the deceased, PW-8, Krishna Kumar also received firearm injury
on his leg.

78. In view of what has been indicated herein above, we are of the view that the
prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt against all the accused
persons under Sections 302/34, 509/34 IPC and 506 IPC. Conviction of the appellants Languri and
Yogesh under Section 506 IPC is also upheld.

79. Accordingly, the instant criminal appeal is dismissed.

80. The appellants are in jail. They shall remain in jail to serve out the sentence awarded to
them by the learned Trial Court.

81. 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.
---------
(2026) 3 ILRA 447
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.03.2026

BEFORE

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

Criminal Appeal No. 7645 of 2017

Irfan & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent
448 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether an inordinate and unexplained delay of two days in lodging the First Information
Report coupled with a version of homicidal intent originating from what was initially recorded as an accidental
injury is fatal to the prosecution case and whether the accused-appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt.
(Paras 27,28,33,41)

Headnotes
Delay in lodging FIR by itself cannot be ground to doubt the prosecution case but where FIR is
delayed and there is no proper explanation the Court must scrutinise the evidence meticulously
to rule out possibility of embellishment in as much as delay provides opportunity for deliberation
and guess work. (Paras 29,32,33)
In cases arising out of acute factions or previous enmity there is tendency to falsely implicate
persons belonging to opposite faction necessitating closer scrutiny of evidence of interested
witnesses to separate grain from chaff. (Para 29)
Where injured is admitted in hospital as a case of accidental injury by the informant but a case
of murder is subsequently registered after delay of 49 hours without plausible explanation
possibility of false implication on account of previous enmity cannot be ruled out. (Paras
34,38,41) (E-7)

Held:

Case Law Cited
Tara Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 1991 Suppl (1) SCC 536; Mukesh Vs. State of NCT of Delhi (2017) 6 SCC
1; Palani Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2018) 15 SCALE 178; Hari Lal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (now
Chhattisgarh), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1124

List of Acts
Indian Penal Code;1860
Code of Criminal Procedure;1973

List of Keywords
delay in FIR; benefit of doubt; accidental death; false implication; eyewitness credibility; enmity; contradiction
in evidence; burden of proof

Case Arising From
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Against the judgment 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 convicting the
appellants under Ss. 302, 120B IPC.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Mrs. Swati Agrawal Srivastava;
Advs. for the Respondents:
Shri S.K. Ojha, AGA-Ist;

(Delivered by 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 whereby the
learned Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:
3 All. Irfan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
449

(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, 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 concrete and
bloodstained concrete from the spot and also recovered motorcycle bearing registration No. UP22F/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
450 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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. 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.

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-
3 All. Irfan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
451
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.

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.

 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
452 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
by hard and blunt object, such as crushing by tractor. He proved his postmortem report as Ext. Ka9.

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 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.

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.
3 All. Irfan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
453
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 accusedappellant 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 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 Honble Supreme Court on the point.

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
454 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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 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 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, Honble 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
3 All. Irfan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
455
gives opportunity for deliberation and guess work. More so, in a case where probability 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 Honble 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 deceasedMohammad 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. Ka17.

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 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 PW-2,
Iftekhar Hussain and PW-3, Arshad Ali, he took the injured to the hospital where he succumbed to
the injuries.
456 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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 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 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.
3 All. Smt. Pratima Chauhan & Anr. Vs. Dios & Ors.
457
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.
---------
(2026) 3 ILRA 457
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ATUL SREEDHARAN, J.
THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J.

Special Appeal No. 35 of 2014

Smt. Pratima Chauhan & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
Dios & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
(1) Permissibility of claiming regularization in Special Appeal, which was not claimed either by amending the
relief in writ petition or by filing a fresh writ petition.
(2) Applicability of ratio laid down in Jahaj Pal's case (Full Bench), crystallized in favour of petitioner.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Appointment - Short-term vacancy - Financial approval - In earlier writ
petition, High Court allowed the petitioners to continue till a regular selection and granted
approval with this condition - However, no salary was paid - Hence another writ petition was
filed for payment of salary, which was dismissed, against which Special Appeal was filed -
During pendency of Appeal, the petitioners were superannuated - Regularization was claimed
under Section 33-G of the Act, 1982 - Permissibility - Question of jurisdiction of the Bench of
Later Patent Appeal exercising the jurisdiction as of Article 226 felt into consideration -
Applicability of Jahaj Pal's case (Full Bench), crystallized in favour of petitioner, also felt into
consideration
Held : As an ad hoc employee having retired during the pendency of the aforesaid appeal, the petitioners
could have either amended the relief or by filing a fresh writ petition could have agitated the aforesaid claim -
Today at a belated stage, this Court finds that on one side the petitioners have retired and there is no prayer
for seeking a direction to regularize the petitioners under the statutory right which has been inserted by the
U.P. Act No. 7 of 2016 i.e. Section 33-G of the Act; and on the other side the non-consideration being given
by the learned Single Judge, on the issue which was pending at the said point of time in the case of Jahaj Pal
and which ultimately crystallized in favour of the petitioners. [Para 23 and 25]
Further held : The judgment of the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. However,
we refrain ourselves from issuing any directions for the regularization of the petitioner under Section 33-G of
the Act, 1982; but we keep it open for the petitioners to move an appropriate applications before the
authorities, for consideration of their claim under Section 33-G of the Act 1982. [Para 26] (E-1)

Case Law Cited
Jahaj Pal vs. District Inspector of Schools and another, 2019 (3) ADJ 424; Baddula Lakshmaih vs. Sri Anjanaya
Swami Temple, 1996 (3) SCC 52; Rama Sonekar vs. M.P. State Public Service Commission, 2018 (17) SCC
106; A.A.I. vs. Pradeep Kumar Banerji, (2025) 4 SCC 111; Management of Narendra & Company Private
Limited vs. The Workmen of Narendra & Company, (2016) 3 SCC 340; Bihar Industrial Area Development
Authority & Ors. vs. M/S Scope Sales Pvt. Ltd., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 112; AIR India Ltd. vs. Cochin