# Mohd. Sharif @ Suhail @ Sazid @Anwar @ Ali v. State of U.P - **Citation:** (2025) 10 ILRA 86 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2025-10-29 - **Case number:** Capital Cases No. 7 of 2019 - **Bench:** Siddhartha Varma, Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mohd-sharif-suhail-sazid-anwar-ali-v-state-of-u-p-52725 - **Pages:** 95 ## Headnote AGA Issue for consideration The appeals were filed by the appellant and others against their conviction and death sentence related to the terrorist attack on the CRPF Group Centre in Rampur that occurred in the early hours of 1 January, 2008. The attack resulted in the death of seven CRPF personnel and one civilian. The principal issues before the High court (a) Whether the Reference No. 6 of 2019 for confirmation of the death sentence should be confirmed. (b) Whether the conviction and death sentences awarded by the trial court to the accused were legally sustainable. Headnotes Criminal law-Indian Penal Code,1860Sections 148, 302/149, 333/149, 307/149, 121/149-Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,1967-Section 20Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act,1984-Section 4 & section 27(3) of the 10 All. Mohd. Sharif @ Suhail @ Sazid @Anwar @ Ali Vs. State of U.P. 87 Arms Act,1959-Challenge to-Capital punishment- Acquittal-Minor conviction upheld-The accused were acquitted of the charges to the terrorist act and murderThe conviction of the accused was, however, upheld only under section 25(1A) of the Arms Act as the firearms, hand grenades, magazines and cartridges were found from the accused persons and they were in possession of those prohibited articles without the fulfillment of the requirements of section 7 of the Arms ActThe offence under section 25(1-A) of the Arms Act is a minor offence in comparison to the offense under section 27(3) of the Act which is not found to be proved in the present appeal-The appellants have already undergone the punishment of rigorous imprisonment of ten years then it shall be deemed that their punishment is complete-Hence, the Reference for confirmation of the death sentence was not confirmed, resulting in the setting aside of the death penalty. Held The court's decision to acquit the accused of the major charges rested on the finding that there was a fundamental and pervasive defect in the investigation that went to the root of the case. This investigative failure compromised the evidence presented. The appeals were allowed, and the accused were acquitted of the charges pertaining to the terrorist attack and murder.(Para 133 to 155) (E-6) List of Acts Indian Penal Code, 1860-Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, Arms Act,1959. List of Keywords Indian Penal Code, 1860, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, Arms Act, CRPF Camp Attack, Terrorist, Capital sentence, death reference, defective investigation. Case Arising From CAPITAL CASES No.-7 of 2019 Mohd. Sharif @ Suhail @ Sazid @ Anwar @ Ali Vs. State of U.P. From the Judgment and Order dated 29.10.2025 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. Appearances for Parties Adv. for Appellant(s):- From Jail, Imran Ullah Adv. for Respondent:- AGA Case law Cited: Amrik Singh Vs State of Punjab (2022) 9 SCC 402, Bollacaram Pedda Narsi Reddi & Ors. Vs State of A.P. (1991) 3 SCC 434, Gireesan Nair & Ors Vs State of Kerala(2023) 1 SCC 180, State of Tamil Nadu through Superintendent of Police, CBI/SIT Vs Nalini & Ors. (1999) 5 SCC 253; State (NCT of Delhi) Vs Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru (2005) 11 SCC 600; Sharad Birdichand Sarda Vs State of Maharashtra AIR (1984) SC 1622-referred to. ## Text _Characters 0–39,998 of 306,274. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39998 for what follows._ 86 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to cooperate with the trial proceedings. There is no possibility of the applicant influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending. 104. In wake of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed. 105. Let the applicant- Vikas Kanjad be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial. (ii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. 106. The learned trial court is directed to fix the sureties after due application of mind in light of the judgement passed by this Court in Arvind Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 45 107. The learned trial court shall ensure that the right of bail of the applicant granted by this Court is not frustrated by arbitrary demands of sureties or onerous conditions which are unrelated to the socioeconomic status of the applicant. 108. It is further directed that in case the applicant does not cooperate in the trial or adopts dilatory tactics, the learned trial court shall record a finding to this effect and cancel the bail without recourse to this Court. --------- (2025) 10 ILRA 86 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.10.2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J. THE HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J. Capital Cases No. 7 of 2019 & Connected With Other Cases Mohd. Sharif @ Suhail @ Sazid @Anwar @ Ali ...Appellant Versus State of U.P. ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellant: From Jail, Imran Ullah Counsel for the Respondent: AGA Issue for consideration The appeals were filed by the appellant and others against their conviction and death sentence related to the terrorist attack on the CRPF Group Centre in Rampur that occurred in the early hours of 1 January, 2008. The attack resulted in the death of seven CRPF personnel and one civilian. The principal issues before the High court (a) Whether the Reference No. 6 of 2019 for confirmation of the death sentence should be confirmed. (b) Whether the conviction and death sentences awarded by the trial court to the accused were legally sustainable. Headnotes Criminal law-Indian Penal Code,1860Sections 148, 302/149, 333/149, 307/149, 121/149-Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,1967-Section 20Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act,1984-Section 4 & section 27(3) of the 10 All. Mohd. Sharif @ Suhail @ Sazid @Anwar @ Ali Vs. State of U.P. 87 Arms Act,1959-Challenge to-Capital punishment- Acquittal-Minor conviction upheld-The accused were acquitted of the charges to the terrorist act and murderThe conviction of the accused was, however, upheld only under section 25(1A) of the Arms Act as the firearms, hand grenades, magazines and cartridges were found from the accused persons and they were in possession of those prohibited articles without the fulfillment of the requirements of section 7 of the Arms ActThe offence under section 25(1-A) of the Arms Act is a minor offence in comparison to the offense under section 27(3) of the Act which is not found to be proved in the present appeal-The appellants have already undergone the punishment of rigorous imprisonment of ten years then it shall be deemed that their punishment is complete-Hence, the Reference for confirmation of the death sentence was not confirmed, resulting in the setting aside of the death penalty. Held The court's decision to acquit the accused of the major charges rested on the finding that there was a fundamental and pervasive defect in the investigation that went to the root of the case. This investigative failure compromised the evidence presented. The appeals were allowed, and the accused were acquitted of the charges pertaining to the terrorist attack and murder.(Para 133 to 155) (E-6) List of Acts Indian Penal Code, 1860-Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, Arms Act,1959. List of Keywords Indian Penal Code, 1860, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, Arms Act, CRPF Camp Attack, Terrorist, Capital sentence, death reference, defective investigation. Case Arising From CAPITAL CASES No.-7 of 2019 Mohd. Sharif @ Suhail @ Sazid @ Anwar @ Ali Vs. State of U.P. From the Judgment and Order dated 29.10.2025 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. Appearances for Parties Adv. for Appellant(s):- From Jail, Imran Ullah Adv. for Respondent:- AGA Case law Cited: Amrik Singh Vs State of Punjab (2022) 9 SCC 402, Bollacaram Pedda Narsi Reddi & Ors. Vs State of A.P. (1991) 3 SCC 434, Gireesan Nair & Ors Vs State of Kerala(2023) 1 SCC 180, State of Tamil Nadu through Superintendent of Police, CBI/SIT Vs Nalini & Ors. (1999) 5 SCC 253; State (NCT of Delhi) Vs Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru (2005) 11 SCC 600; Sharad Birdichand Sarda Vs State of Maharashtra AIR (1984) SC 1622-referred to. (Delivered by Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma, J.) & (Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, J.) 1. The above Appeals being Capital Case No. 7 of 2019 (Mohd. Sharif @ Suhail @ Sazid @ Anwar @ Ali vs. State of U.P.) and Capital Case No. 3 of 2020 (Mohd. Sharif @ Suhail @ Sazid @ Anvar @ Ali And 3 Ors. vs. State of U.P.) have been filed against the judgment and order 1.11.2019 and 2.11.2019 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Rampur in Session Trial No. 208 of 2008 (State vs. Mohd. Sharif @ Suhail and Ors.) (Leading Case) connected with Session Trial No. 338 of 2009 (State vs. Mohd. Sharif and Ors.), Session Trial No. 664 of 2009 (State vs. Imran Shahjad and Ors.), Session Trial No. 09 of 2010 (State vs. Imran Shahjad and Ors.) and Session Trial No. 179 of 2011 (State vs. Sabauddin). Since in Session Trial No. 208 of 2008, Session Trial No. 09 of 2010 and in Session Trial No. 179 of 2011 the 88 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES accused Mohd Sharif, Imran Shahjad, Mohd. Farooq and Sabauddin were awarded capital punishment, reference being Reference No. 6 of 2019 has been sent for confirmation on 4.11.2019 to this Court. 2. Against the capital sentence, Mohd. Sharif filed Capital Case No. 7 of 2019 while Capital Case No. 3 of 2020 was filed by Mohd. Sharif alongwith Imran Shahjad, Mohd. Farooq and Sabauddin. Criminal Appeal 31 of 2020 was filed by Jang Bahadur Khan against his conviction which was of life imprisonment. All the accused persons were awarded punishments in the following manner: (1) The accused persons namely (1) Mohd. Sharif @ Suhail @ Sajid @ Anwar @ Ali, (2) Sabauddin @ Sahabuddin @ Sabah @ Sanjeev @ Farhan @ Saba @ Abu-al-Kasim @ Babar @ Mubassir @ Samir @ Iftekhar, (3) Imran Shahjad @ Abu Osama @ Ajay @ Asad @ Rameez Raja Owais and (4) Mohd. Farooq @ Abu Zulkar Nain @ Abujar @ Amar Singh were convicted under Section 302 read with section 149 of I.P.C. and were punished with death sentence and a fine of Rs. 50,000/- (each of the accused). In the event of default, they were to undergo an additional imprisonment for three months. (2) The accused persons namely (1) Mohd. Sharif @ Suhail @ Sajid @ Anwar @ Ali, (2) Sabauddin @ Sahabuddin @ Sabah @ Sanjeev @ Farhan @ Saba @ Abu-al-Kasim @ Babar @ Mubassir @ Samir @ Iftekhar, (3) Imran Shahjad @ Abu Osama @ Ajay @ Asad @ Rameez Raja Owais and (4) Mohd. Farooq @ Abu Zulkar Nain @ Abujar @ Amar Singh were convicted under Section 27(3) of Arms Act for death sentence. (3) The accused persons namely (1) Mohd. Sharif @ Suhail @ Sajid @ Anwar @ Ali, (2) Sabauddin @ Sahabuddin @ Sabah @ Sanjeev @ Farhan @ Saba @ Abu-al-Kasim @ Babar @ Mubassir @ Samir @ Iftekhar, (3) Imran Shahjad @ Abu Osama @ Ajay @ Asad @ Rameez Raja Owais and (4) Mohd. Farooq @ Abu Zulkar Nain @ Abujar @ Amar Singh were to be hung by the neck until they died. (4) The accused person namely Jang Bahadur Khan was convicted under Section 302 read with section 149 of I.P.C. for life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 50,000/-. In the event of default, he was to undergo an additional imprisonment for three months. (5) The accused persons namely (1) Mohd. Sharif @ Suhail @ Sajid @ Anwar @ Ali, (2) Sabauddin @ Sahabuddin @ Sabah @ Sanjeev @ Farhan @ Saba @ Abu-al-Kasim @ Babar @ Mubassir @ Samir @ Iftekhar, (3) Imran Shahjad @ Abu Osama @ Ajay @ Asad @ Rameez Raja Owais and (4) Mohd. Farooq @ Abu Zulkar Nain @ Abujar @ Amar Singh (5) Jang Bahadur Khan @ Baba were also convicted under Section 148 of I.P.C. for imprisonment of three years. (6) The accused persons namely (1) Mohd. Sharif @ Suhail @ Sajid @ Anwar @ Ali, (2) Sabauddin @ Sahabuddin @ Sabah @ Sanjeev @ Farhan @ Saba @ Abu-al-Kasim @ Babar @ Mubassir @ Samir @ Iftekhar, (3) Imran Shahjad @ Abu Osama @ Ajay @ Asad @ Rameez Raja Owais and (4) Mohd. Farooq @ Abu Zulkar Nain @ Abujar @ Amar Singh (5) Jang Bahadur Khan @ Baba were, in addition to the above, convicted under Section 307 read with section 149 of 10 All. Mohd. Sharif @ Suhail @ Sazid @Anwar @ Ali Vs. State of U.P. 89 I.P.C. for imprisonment of 10 years and a fine of Rs. 25,000/- (each of the accused). In the event of default, they were to undergo an additional imprisonment for three months. (7) The accused persons namely (1) Mohd. Sharif @ Suhail @ Sajid @ Anwar @ Ali, (2) Sabauddin @ Sahabuddin @ Sabah @ Sanjeev @ Farhan @ Saba @ Abu-al-Kasim @ Babar @ Mubassir @ Samir @ Iftekhar, (3) Imran Shahjad @ Abu Osama @ Ajay @ Asad @ Rameez Raja Owais and (4) Mohd. Farooq @ Abu Zulkar Nain @ Abujar @ Amar Singh (5) Jang Bahadur Khan @ Baba were convicted under Section 333 read with section 149 of I.P.C. for imprisonment of 7 years and a fine of Rs. 20,000/- (each of the accused). In the event of default, they were to undergo an additional imprisonment for two months. (8) The accused persons namely (1) Mohd. Sharif @ Suhail @ Sajid @ Anwar @ Ali, (2) Sabauddin @ Sahabuddin @ Sabah @ Sanjeev @ Farhan @ Saba @ Abu-al-Kasim @ Babar @ Mubassir @ Samir @ Iftekhar, (3) Imran Shahjad @ Abu Osama @ Ajay @ Asad @ Rameez Raja Owais (4) Mohd. Farooq @ Abu Zulkar Nain @ Abujar @ Amar Singh and (5) Jang Bahadur Khan @ Baba were convicted under Section 4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (herein after referred to as "PDPP Act") for imprisonment of 5 years and a fine of Rs. 20,000/- (each of the accused). In the event of default, they were to undergo an additional imprisonment for two months. (9) The accused persons namely (1) Mohd. Sharif @ Suhail @ Sajid @ Anwar @ Ali, (2) Sabauddin @ Sahabuddin @ Sabah @ Sanjeev @ Farhan @ Saba @ Abu-al-Kasim @ Babar @ Mubassir @ Samir @ Iftekhar, (3) Imran Shahjad @ Abu Osama @ Ajay @ Asad @ Rameez Raja Owais (4) Mohd. Farooq @ Abu Zulkar Nain @ Abujar @ Amar Singh and (5) Jang Bahadur Khan @ Baba were convicted under Section 121 read with section 149 of I.P.C. for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 25,000/- (each of the accused). In the event of default, they were to undergo an additional imprisonment for two months. (10) The accused persons namely (1) Mohd. Sharif @ Suhail @ Sajid @ Anwar @ Ali, (2) Sabauddin @ Sahabuddin @ Sabah @ Sanjeev @ Farhan @ Saba @ Abu-al-Kasim @ Babar @ Mubassir @ Samir @ Iftekhar, (3) Imran Shahjad @ Abu Osama @ Ajay @ Asad @ Rameez Raja Owais (4) Mohd. Farooq @ Abu Zulkar Nain @ Abujar @ Amar Singh and (5) Jang Bahadur Khan @ Baba were convicted under Section 16 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 25,000/- (each of the accused). In the event of default, they were to undergo an additional imprisonment for two months. (11) The accused persons namely (1) Mohd. Sharif @ Suhail @ Sajid @ Anwar @ Ali, (2) Sabauddin @ Sahabuddin @ Sabah @ Sanjeev @ Farhan @ Saba @ Abu-al-Kasim @ Babar @ Mubassir @ Samir @ Iftekhar, (3) Imran Shahjad @ Abu Osama @ Ajay @ Asad @ Rameez Raja Owais (4) Mohd. Farooq @ Abu Zulkar Nain @ Abujar @ Amar Singh and (5) Jang Bahadur Khan @ Baba were convicted under Section 20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 25,000/- (each of the accused). In the event of 90 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES default, they were to undergo an additional imprisonment for two months. 3. Upon an incident which took place in the mid night of 31.12.2007 and in the wee hours of 01.01.2008 at around 02:00 to 02:30 AM an F.I.R. was got lodged by one Sub-Inspector Om Prakash Sharma at Police Station Civil Lines, District - Rampur on 1.1.2008 with the averment that on that day he himself, Sub-Inspector Om Prakash Sharma, having a revolver, Constable 533 Indrapal Singh, 751 Jitendra Singh and Home Guard 1497 Aftab Khan moved out on a government jeep U.P.22G0019 with driver Constable 118 Jaswant Singh from the thana and had reached the place of incident at around 12:25 AM for maintaining law and order and for a general surveillance. In the FIR, it had been stated that the moment they reached the CRPF toll barrier they heard, from the side of the Gate No.1 of CRPF Group Centre, incessant firing taking place. At the toll barrier the first informant met Sub-Inspector Bihari Lal, Constable 764 Nasir, Constable 491 Virendra Rana, Home Guard 1459 Ganpat and Home Guard 1480 Ram Gopal. They also informed the first informant of the sound they had heard of the incessant firing taking place near the CRPF Group Centre Gate No.1. At around 02:30 AM in the light of electricity bulb, they saw 4-5 persons who were having modern automatic weapons firing towards the group centre on the CRPF personnel. Having seen the firing on the CRPF personnel with automatic weapons, they were convinced that they were terrorists. At this moment, the first informant ordered to fire towards the terrorists. The first informant with his revolver fired twice while Constable 533 Indrapal Singh fired eight times, Constable Jitendra Singh fired seven times, Constable Virendra Rana fired five times and Home Guard Aftab Khan fired five times with their rifles. These firings were done virtually with a view to protect themselves. When the terrorists realised that firing was taking place from the side of the first informant then with an intention to kill the entire team of the police, which had reached there, the terrorists fired on them and in the process Constable Indrapal Singh and Home Guard Aftab Khan were seriously injured. The rifle of Indrapal Singh was also damaged. Having over-powered the police team the terrorists entered the CRPF Centre and there also they started firing. They also hurled hand grenades. In the interregnum, the first informant with the help of the wireless set in the jeep informed the thana and the other higher officials about the incident. He also asked for help. During the incident, the CRPF personnel also fired towards the terrorists. Thereafter, the police personnel also unsuccessfully tried to follow the terrorists. When the firing from the side of the terrorists stopped and quite a few police and CRPF personnel had collected on the spot then the CRPF jawans informed that in the terrorists' attack from their side, Constable Devendra and Constable Vikas Kumar along with one more unknown person had died. It was also informed that Constable Kendra Singh and Pradeep were grievously injured. Inside the Campus Havaldar Rishikesh Rai, Afzal Ahmad, Ramjeet Saran Mishra, Constable Anand Kumar, Constable Manveer Singh had died and one Constable Niranjan was also grievously injured. The constable who had been injured inside the Campus was taken to the hospital of the CRPF. In the end of the F.I.R., it was stated that all the police personnel and the CRPF personnel had seen the terrorists in the light of the electricity bulb and that if they were produced before them, they could recognise 10 All. Mohd. Sharif @ Suhail @ Sazid @Anwar @ Ali Vs. State of U.P. 91 them. Because of the incident, the people living in the neighbouring areas were terrified. It was thus stated that the crime committed was an offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 332 of I.P.C. and Section 3/5 of the PDPP Act. Also the F.I.R. was registered under Section 3 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908. In the F.I.R. it was stated that the empty cartridges could not be located in the night and that as and when they would be recovered, they would be taken into custody. After the F.I.R. was lodged, a report was also submitted from the office of Additional Deputy Inspector General of Police, CRPF with regard to the incident which had occurred on 1.1.2008 at 02:25 AM in which it was stated that from the Campus through the gate no. 1 an attack had happened in which seven personnel of the CRPF had died and three were grievously injured. The details was given as under: Dead personnel : (i) Constable Anand Kumar (ii) Havaldar Rishikesh Rai (iii) Havaldar Afzal Ahmad (iv) Havaldar Ramji Saran Mishra (v) Constable Manveer Singh (vi) Constable Devendra Kumar (vii) Constable Vikas Kumar Injured CRPF personnel : (i) Constable Kendra Singh (ii) Constable Pradeep Kumar (iii) Constable Ranjan Lal and it was also stated that still further two employees of the Department had been injured. It was also informed that the CRPF men had fired around 68 rounds of SLR and 3 rounds of A.K.M.K. In Clause IV of the communication the places where the deaths had taken place were given out. On the main gate/ guard room, 4 CRPF jawans had died. In the central control room 2 CRPF jawans had died and in the other control room 1 jawan had died. It was also stated that in the terrorists' attack probably grenades were used. From the terrorists 1 magazine of AK-47, 29 live rounds and 7 empty cartridges were taken into custody and 1 lever of a hand grenade was recovered. In the incident it was also stated that one SLR rifle (body no. 16142833) had got damaged alongwith a magazine of 40 rounds and a request was made that an F.I.R. be lodged to that effect. When on 2.1.2008, apart from the earlier recoveries, further recoveries were made of a safety pin of a grenade, four empty cartridges of AK-47 and six flat bullets, then they were also handed over to the police. The AK-47 magazine with 29 live rounds of ammunition, 7 empty cartridges and the lever of hand grenade which were found on 1.1.2008 were also handed over to the police. So far as the police was concerned, it had on 1.1.2008 in the presence of various witnesses, from the place of incident and from near the railway gate, 1 damaged SLR rifle of 10 rounds of live ammunition, 1 SLR number 5747 and 2 empty cartridges of SLR with one missed cartridge of SLR alongwith a Nokia mobile, sim number 9927846448, were taken into custody. The recovery memo was prepared and was numbered as Exhibit Ka-65. On 1.1.2008, the police, on the directions of the Thana In-charge, Sub- 92 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Inspector S.C. Sharma from the place of incident had collected 32 empty cartridges of AK-47. Also 2 magazines were recovered and they were taken into custody. Also, Sub-Inspector S.C. Sharma on 1.1.2008 had recovered the ash mud and concrete and plain mud from the site where the deceased Kishan Lal was killed by the hand grenade. Also a blanket which had blood of deceased Kishan Lal was taken into custody. On the same day i.e. on 1.1.2008, S.C. Sharma from the guard room had collected half burnt cap, belt, certain particles of a hand grenade, a broken glass and other relevant objects. The recovery memo of it was prepared and numbered as Exhibit Ka-68. Similarly, Exhibit Ka-69, Exhibit Ka-70, Exhibit Ka-71, Exhibit Ka72, Exhibit Ka-73, Exhibit Ka-74, Exhibit Ka-75 and Exhibit Ka-76 were the recovery memos of various other articles which were found from the place of incident. 4. The postmortem of Constable Ramji Saran was done and its report was kept on record as Exhibit Ka-61. 5. Exhibit Ka-62 was the postmortem report of Rishikesh Rai. 6. Exhibit Ka-58 was the postmortem report of Constable Anand Kumar. 7. Exhibit Ka-56 was the postmortem report of Vikas Kumar. 8. Exhibit Ka-57 was the postmortem report of Constable Devendra Kumar. 9. Exhibit Ka-63 was the postmortem report of deceased Kishan Lal. 10. Exhibit Ka-59 was the postmortem report of Constable Afzal Ahmad. 11. Exhibit Ka-60 was the postmortem report of Constable Manveer Singh. 12. Similarly, the medical reports of the injured Constable Indrapal Singh, Rajjanpal, Pradeep Chaudhari, Home Guard Aftab and Constable Kendrapal Singh were prepared and were kept on record as Exhibit Ka-51, Exhibit Ka-52, Exhibit Ka-53, Exhibit Ka-54 and Exhibit Ka-55 respectively. 13. So far as the arrests were concerned, three accused persons namely Baba @ Jang Bahadur, Mohd. Sharif @ Sohail @ Sajid @ Anwar @ Ali and Faheem @ Arshad @ Hasan Ahmad @ Aakil @ Abu Zarrar @ Sahil @ Samir Sheikh were arrested on 9/10.2.2008 in the night by Additional Superintendent of Police, Ashok Kumar Raghav and the accompanying police personnel. They were arrested alongwith weapons and with regard to the weapons a recovery memo was prepared as Exhibit Ka-64. On 10.2.2008 at around 06:20 AM the accused Imran Shahjad, Mohd. Farooq @ Abu Zulfeqar Nain @ Abuzar @ Amar Singh and Sabauddin @ Shahabuddin @ Shaba @ Sanjid @ Farhan @ Shaba @ Abu-alKasim @ Babar @ Mobassir @ Samir @ Iftekar were arrested alongwith their weapons in Lucknow. From the possession of these three accused persons also were recovered various weapons, the memos of which were prepared. The spot map of the place of incident was prepared by the Investigating Officer which was marked as Exhibit Ka-88. 14. Upon the investigation having been completed a charge-sheet was filed. Thereafter various supplementary chargesheets were also filed. Thereafter the trial commenced. 10 All. Mohd. Sharif @ Suhail @ Sazid @Anwar @ Ali Vs. State of U.P. 93 15. From the side of the prosecution as many as 38 witnesses appeared and they testified before the court. 16. PW-1 Sri O.P. Sharma had come to the court and testified after he had retired from service and had stated that in the mid night of 31.12.2007 and 1.1.2008 he was posted as a Sub-Inspector at Thana Civil Lines, District Rampur. He had stated that the incident was of 1.1.2008 and had occurred at around 02:30 AM. In the same strain he had mentioned that on 1.1.2008 he had started from the thana at around 12:25 AM alongwith Constable Indrapal (PW-6) who was carrying a service rifle and was also having 30 cartridges. Alongwith these two, Jitendra (PW-38) another constable was also there and was having a service rifle with 30 cartridges. Home Guard Aftab Khan also was there and he had a rifle with 30 live cartridges. They were on a government jeep (UP22G0019) and the jeep was being driven by Constable 118 Jaswant Singh. PW-1 himself was having a service revolver of 38 bore and had 12 live bullets with him. After having done the regular round, the entire team had reached Kosi Bridge and was stationed at the toll of the CRPF. At the CRPF toll the picket duty was being done by Sub-Inspector Bihari Lal, Constable Nasir Ali, Constable Virendra Rana, Home Guard Lakhpat and Ram Gopal. They were all carrying weapons provided by the State. When the PW-1 alongwith his policemen reached the CRPF Camp and had commenced their duties, then from the Gate No. 1 they heard the sound of firing. This prompted the PW1 to believe that at Gate No.1 some incident had taken place and therefore they all reached the CRPF Gate No.1 and parked the jeep alongside the road. They got out of the jeep and somehow reached the CRPF Gate No.1 and in the light of the electricity bulb they saw 4-5 persons with modern automatic weapons and that they were aiming at the jawans of the CRPF and were firing upon them. The way the firing was going on, the PW-1 and his team was convinced that they were all terrorists. He had then stated that from amongst the various terrorists one Jang Bahadur who was at Gate No. 1 of the CRPF Camp had a little ahead of him Irfan Shahjad and Mohd. Farooq. They were all having AK-47 rifles and were incessantly firing towards the CRPF Camp and they were also throwing grenades. Jang Bahadur had incited and exhorted the two other friends of his and was giving strength to them. He had then stated that a little away from the spot near the CRPF Camp, Sabauddin @ Shaba was also standing with an AK-47 rifle and they were all firing from their guns and were throwing grenades. Just near Sabauddin, Mohd. Sharif was also standing. He was also targetting the CRPF Camp with grenades. Jang Bahadur, he had heard, was saying to Imran and Sharif that they may move a little from the place where they were standing and from there they may throw grenades. To Farooq he was saying that he may hurl the grenades and kill the kafirs. Jang Bahadur was also directing Mohd. Sharif to throw grenades from behind. Jang Bahadur was all the time inciting his friends and was encouraging them and he was also passing on all the informations of the camp to his men. The PW-1 realising that he had to confront a very powerful set of people directed his own men that while they may protect themselves, they had also to kill the terrorists. The Sub-Inspector also fired twice from his revolver towards the terrorists. Indrapal fired eight rounds from his rifle. Jitendra fired seven rounds and similarly Virendra fired five rounds. Aftab 94 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES also fired five rounds. When the police party fired from a particular point then the terrorists aimed at them and threw a grenade towards them which hit Constable Indrapal. Not only that, one particular ball of fire also hit the Home Guard Aftab Khan and they both got injured. Also the rifle of Constable Indrapal got damaged. The terrorists Imran Shahjad and Mohd. Farooq while firing with their AK-47 rifles entered the CRPF Camp. First Imran entered thereafter Farooq entered and they continued to fire and also continued to throw grenades. From both sides since firing was taking place, the PW-1 could hear the sounds of the firing loud and clear. At this juncture, the Sub-Inspector (PW-1) informed the control room about the terrorists' attack and he prayed for more help. It had been stated that the incident was of 1.1.2008 and had occurred at around 02:30 AM. He reiterated that in the light which was there he alongwith his companion police personnel had recognised the terrorists. After sometime the firing stopped. Thereafter the police team tried to chase the terrorists unsuccessfully. He then had stated that thereafter the police team entered the CRPF Camp and by that time Satya Prakash Sharma alongwith other police personnel had reached the place of incident. The officials of the CRPF also reached the place of incident. Outside the Gate No. 1, the CRPF jawan Devendra Singh and Constable Vikas alongwith one rikhshaw puller Kishan Lal had been hit with bullets fired by the terrorists and they had died and their dead-bodies were lying outside the CRPF Gate No. 1. At this place he had stated that Constable Pradeep Kumar, Constable Ranjan Lal and Havaldar Afzal Ahmad had also been hit by bullets and they were also injured. Afzal Ahmad while going to the hospital of the CRPF, died. The Constable Kendra Singh who had been injured inside the CRPF Camp alongwith Havaldar Ramji Saran Mishra, Havaldar Rishikesh Rai, Constable Manveer Singh and Constable Anand Singh had also died and their dead-bodies were lying inside the CRPF Camp. Near the CRPF Gate No. 1, the SLR of a CRPF jawan had got damaged and was lying there. Since, the terrorists had thrown grenades on the control room of the D.I.G. the marks of the grenades where they had hit were to be seen. He had stated that a lot of people who were passing by the main highway had got terrorised. The Constable Indrapal and Home Guard Aftab Khan had got injured because of the bullets hitting them and they were taken to the Rampur District Hospital. Their medical reports were sent through Constable Mahipal. The injured Indrapal and Aftab had submitted their damaged weapons and the bullets, which they had, in Thana Civil Lines Rampur. He had stated that he had lodged the F.I.R. in his own handwriting, which was numbered as Exhibit Ka-1 and the F.I.R. upon being lodged had given rise to Case Crime No. 8 of 2008, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 332, 307, 302 of I.P.C. read with section 3/5 of PDPP Act and it was also lodged under Section 3 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908. On the F.I.R., he had stated, that his signatures were there. He had stated that Jang Bahadur and Mohd. Sharif were residents of Moradabad and Rampur respectively. On 10.02.2008, he had stated that he had recognised them in the thana Civil Lines and had stated that they were the accused who were there at the CRPF Gate No. 1. He had stated that Mohd. Sharif was throwing the grenades and Jang Bahadur was giving directions to all the other terrorists. He thereafter had stated that Jang Bahadur and Mohd. Sharif were present in the court and he recognised them very well. On 22.2.2008, the terrorists 10 All. Mohd. Sharif @ Suhail @ Sazid @Anwar @ Ali Vs. State of U.P. 95 Imran Shahjad and Mohd. Farooq who were earlier detained by the ATS team, Lucknow were brought to Rampur on remand. He had stated that he had recognised them at the Police Line. He had stated that he had seen the photograph of Sabauddin @ Shaba which was there in the Kotwali, Rampur and had stated that he was present in the Court. Mohd. Sharif was a resident of District Rampur and that he had committed the crime after a full reconnaissance with Jang Bahadur. Because of the reconnaissance which he had been doing, certain news items had been published in the newspapers and, therefore there was vigilance on the spot. The empty cartridges of the two firings which the PW-1 had done were there at the spot and they had been collected by SubInspector Virasat Ali. The PW-1 had stated that he had taken empty cartridges from Virasat Ali and had given them to the Investigating Officer. The empty cartridges of the firing done by Jitendra and Virendra were also found from the spot. However, only ten of them could be found and they were also handed over to the Investigating Officer, Satya Prakash Sharma. The damaged rifle of Indrapal Singh was also handed over to the Investigating Officer Satya Prakash Sharma and he had on the spot kept them in two separate cloth pieces and had sealed them. On the bundles which were prepared, the PW-1 had also signed. The signature of Satya Prakash Sharma who had prepared the memo was known to the PW-1 and he had recognised his handwriting. The Investigating Officer Satya Prakash Sharma had collected the empty cartridges of 38 bore revolver and the 10 empty cartridges. The memo of these articles was prepared. The memo of recovery of the magazine was also prepared in the presence of PW-1 and other witnesses. The paper which had the memo was numbered as 7Ka/5 and it had the signatures of PW-1 and other witnesses. 17. Further the Sub-Inspector Omprakash (retired) had stated that the PW-1 was confronted by the statement recorded by the 2nd Investigating Officer O.P. Tripathi which was dated 16.9.2008, on which date the PW-1 had got recorded his statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. again. The first time the Inspector PW-1 had got his statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. was on 1.1.2008. He reiterated that the five terrorists whom he had seen in the incident could be recognised by him as well as by his accompanying constables. He had stated that they were present in the court. He had stated that he had handed over the rifle of Constable Indrapal Singh, which had got damaged, to the 1st Investigating Officer Satya Prakash Sharma. Alongwith the damaged rifle, he had also handed over the broken magazine. The other rifle of Home Guard Aftab Khan which had got damaged at the place of incident was also kept in the Thana Civil Lines and that the two rifles could be recognised by the PW-1. In the cross-examination done on behalf of the accused persons, the PW-1 had stated as to how and why he had reached the place of incident around one hour before. He had stated on that date while patrolling, he had got an information of a dead-body lying in the neighbourhood at around 12:30 PM and that dead-body was sent with a constable who was on duty and thereafter he had stated that he had reached the place of incident about half an hour thereafter. He had stated that while patrolling he had not come across any suspicious vehicle which might have been parked at the place of incident. He then had stated that when he had reached the place of incident the firing had already commenced and upon coming 96 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES to know of the incident, the PW-1 alongwith his other companions had reached the CRPF Gate No. 1 and thereafter they had taken position. After looking at the site plan he had stated that he had taken position at the place marked as D1. He had further stated that in the F.I.R. he had not given out as to where the two accused persons were standing/stationed. He had stated that he had not stated anything which was peculiar about the description of the accused persons in the F.I.R. and that he had only given the description while recording his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to the 1st Investigating Officer. He had stated that he had, while giving the description, not given any special features of the accused and that he had only stated that they were young men. In the F.I.R., he had stated that there were 4-5 accused persons. He had stated that he had not given out in the F.I.R. about the AK-47 and that he had only stated that the terrorists were carrying modern weapons. In his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 1.1.2008 also he had not stated anything about the AK-47. He had stated that in the F.I.R. and also in the statement recorded on 1.1.2008 he had not stated anything with regard to the fact as to which of the accused person was exhorting the other accused persons and as to which of the accused person was encouraging the other accused persons. He had stated that on 22.2.2008 even though no statement of his was recorded but he was on duty, and was guarding the accused persons who had got arrested. He had stated that he had not prepared any note with regard to the recognition of the accused persons. He had stated that he had seen the photograph of Sabauddin on 22.3.2008. He had stated that he did not know as to how the photograph of Sabauddin had reached the police station. He had stated that he had known the name of Sabauddin as it was written below the photograph. This witness upon being asked as to where the dead-bodies of the deceased were lying, he had stated that he could look into the map and tell as to where the dead-bodies were lying and in fact after looking at the map he had stated that at points D1, D2 and D3 outside the gate and at points D4 and D8 inside the compound the dead-bodies were lying. The points D1, D2 and D3 were along the railway crossing. He had stated that he had given the exact name of the deceased in the F.I.R. He had stated that it was wrong to conclude that no incident had taken place in his presence. He had further stated that injured Constable Indrapal Singh and Home Guard Aftab Khan were taken in jeep (UP 22 G 0019) at 03:15 AM in the morning and this was the jeep by which he had come from thana to the place of incident. He had stated that he had not stated in the general diary that Constable Indrapal and Home Guard Aftab Khan were taken to the hospital. He had stated that while chasing the assailants he was accompanied by Constable Jitendra and Constable Virendra and that for around 15 minutes the three had followed the assailants for a distance of about 500 meters alongside the railway line. While following them they had not shot at the assailants and in fact the PW-1 had tripped on the railway track. However, the accompanying constables had fired 12 times. The assailants and the police party were separated by a distance of 200 steps. He had stated that immediately after Indrapal Singh and Aftab Khan had got injured, he had informed the Headquarter on wireless which was recorded on GD No. 9. He had stated that he had deposited the empty cartridges at the thana. The empty cartridges of his revolver were also given to Sub-Inspector Virasat Ali. After being 10 All. Mohd. Sharif @ Suhail @ Sazid @Anwar @ Ali Vs. State of U.P. 97 deposited at the thana they were entered in the GD. The other used cartridges were also submitted in the police station on the same GD number. On the spot he had categorically stated that he had not prepared any memo of recovery. He had stated that when the accused were arrested, he did not remember that whether their faces were open or hidden. He had denied the fact that there was no incident which had taken place and that the entire incident was a result of the new year day celebration. 18. PW-2 was C.P. Satish Sharma who had in his examination-in-chief stated that on 1.1.2008 he was posted at Thana Kotwali Civil Lines as Constable Clerk and that he had registered the F.I.R. submitted by Sub-Inspector Omprakash Sharma at 5:50 AM and that had given rise to Case Crime No. 8 of 2008, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 332, 307, 302 of I.P.C. read with section 3/5 of PDPP Act and under Section 3 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The chick was numbered as 1 of 2008. He had also proven the fact that on 1.1.2008 at around 02:30 AM the information on the wireless was received. Thereafter in his cross-examination by the accused persons he stood firm with what he had stated in the examination-in-chief. 19. PW-3 was the Sub-Inspector Sumair Lal who had proven the panchayatnama which was of the deceased Afzal Ahmad, jawan of the CRPF. He had also prepared the panchayatnama of the deceased Manveer Singh and these he had proved. 20. PW-4 was one Sub-Inspector Omprakash Akela and he had also proven the panchayatnama with regard to the deceased Ramji Saran Mishra and others. 21. PW-5 was the Sub-Inspector Shawabul Hasan who had also prepared the panchayatnama of the deceased persons and had proven them and had also proved the receiving of certain recovered empty cartridges and a hand grenade's lever. 22. The PW-6 was the injured Constable Indrapal Singh. He had stated that on the date of the incident i.e. on 1.1.2008 he was posted in Civil Lines Thana. On that date he alongwith the SubInspector O.P. Sharma had gone at around 12:00 in the mid night along with the other constables. Sub-Inspector had a revolver with him. While the entire group was approaching the CRPF Camp they had heard sounds of incessant firing. It is at this place that they met the other policemen already on duty namely Bihari Lal, Nasir Husain, Virendra Rana, Home Guards Ganpat and Ram Gopal. Both the teams together decided to go towards the place from where the sounds of firing were coming and at that point of time Constable Virendra Rana was also sitting in the jeep. The others who could not find place in the jeep were coming on foot. Just before a particular point which was the railway quarters, the jeep was stopped and the police personnel got off it and it was seen by the PW-6 that 4-5 persons were firing towards the CRPF Headquarter.