Allahabad HC Finds Prosecution Case “Inherently Unreliable” 36 Years After Murder, Acquits Man Convicted

Allahabad: The Allahabad High Court has acquitted a man convicted over two decades ago for a 1990 murder in Ghaziabad, holding that the prosecution's account of the incident was riddled with inconsistencies and improbabilities sufficient to entitle him to the benefit of doubt.

A Bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Saurabh Srivastava, in a judgment authored by Justice Munir, allowed the appeal filed by Khalid against his conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, and set aside the life sentence and fine imposed on him by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Ghaziabad, by a judgment dated January 25, 2005.

Khalid and his servant, co-accused Nannu, had been convicted of murdering Sarafraz @ Pappu in Sessions Trial No. 82 of 1994. Nannu died in April 2021 while the appeal was pending, and it was ordered to abate on his behalf in January 2022, proceeding thereafter only at the instance of Khalid.

According to the prosecution, the incident occurred on January 7, 1990, at Khalid's farmhouse in Village Nahli, Ghaziabad, when the deceased Sarafraz was allegedly summoned by Khalid, through Nannu, over the lending of a tractor-trolley. When Sarafraz declined, citing his own need to transport chaff, a verbal altercation followed, during which Khalid allegedly directed Nannu to restrain Sarafraz. As Khalid aimed a double-barrel gun at Sarafraz, the informant — Sarafraz's father, Wahiuddin — is said to have pushed the barrel down, deflecting the shot onto Nannu's leg. Khalid is then alleged to have drawn a pistol and shot Sarafraz in the head, causing his death shortly after at a hospital in Meerut.

On the evidentiary value of the First Information Report (FIR), the Court noted that Wahiuddin, the informant, had died before the trial commenced and could not enter the witness box to prove its contents. Following its own earlier ruling in Pradeep v. State of U.P. (2022) and the Supreme Court's subsequent decision in Lalita v. Vishwanath and others (2025), the Bench held that since the FIR bore no nexus to the informant's own death, its contents could not be read as substantive evidence under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The scribe's testimony, the Court held, could only establish that the FIR was dictated and signed as claimed and duly registered — not the truth of what it contained.

“Mere non-proof of the FIR... does not impair the prosecution from proving their case otherwise by producing evidence in the dock.”

Examining the ocular evidence of the deceased's brother and cousin, who were projected as eyewitnesses, the Court found the prosecution's version of the assault to be improbable on more than one count. It observed that a person holding a victim at close range while another fires at him would ordinarily risk being struck himself, and that the medical evidence — showing Nannu sustained pellet injuries consistent with a double-barrel shotgun — was difficult to reconcile with Sarafraz remaining unhurt by the same shot. The Court also noted the absence of any explanation, or any evidence of prior hostility, for why the informant and two other witnesses accompanied the deceased to the appellant's farmhouse in the first place.

The Court further took note of a cross-version lodged by Nannu shortly after the incident, registered under Section 307 IPC, naming Wahiuddin, Sarafraz, and the two prosecution witnesses as accused. That version claimed the deceased's side had arrived armed at Khalid's farmhouse over the tractor-trolley dispute, that Wahiuddin opened fire injuring Nannu, and that Khalid caught hold of Sarafraz to shield himself, resulting in the fatal shot. While the police did not file a chargesheet on this cross-version, the Court weighed it in assessing the overall credibility of the prosecution's case.

Reiterating that the prosecution bears the burden of proving its case beyond reasonable doubt, and citing a line of Supreme Court precedent on the standard of proof, the Bench concluded that the prosecution had failed to discharge this burden. It accordingly extended the benefit of doubt to Khalid, allowed the appeal, and acquitted him of the charge, directing his release forthwith unless wanted in any other case. Khalid was directed to execute a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 under Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to secure his appearance in the event the acquittal is appealed.

Case Title: Khalid and another v. State of U.P.

Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 400 of 2005

Court: Allahabad High Court

Bench: Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Saurabh Srivastava (authored by J.J. Munir, J.)

Counsel for Appellant: Ayush Singh (arguing counsel); Bhavya Sahai, Mohd. Samiuzzaman Khan, N.I. Jafri, Noor Mohammad, R.P. Singh, S.P. Singh Raghav, Sunil Kumar Yadav (on record)

Counsel for Respondent/Informant: Shashi Shekhar Tiwari, Additional Government Advocate (for the State); Sunil Singh (for the informant)

Date of Judgment: July 1, 2026