“Appeals Devoid of Merits”: Allahabad High Court Upholds Life Sentence of Father and Six Sons for Double Murder Over Alleged Relationship
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Uttar Pradesh Division Bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Praveen Kumar Giri has upheld the convictions of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 149 and Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court dismissed all criminal appeals challenging the judgment and order of the Trial Court, which had sentenced the accused to life imprisonment for the murder of two individuals. Finding no merit in the contentions raised, the Division Bench confirmed the findings of the Trial Court and directed that the appellants currently on bail be taken into custody immediately to serve out the remainder of their sentence.
The criminal appeals arose from the conviction and sentence imposed in Sessions Trial No. 358 of 2006 by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Meerut. The Trial Court had convicted the accused persons—comprising Ibrahim, his six sons, and two others—under Sections 147 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The conviction pertained to the murder of Sharafat and Soni, which occurred on the night of 5 February 2006.
According to the prosecution, the First Information Report was lodged by Raees Ahmad at Police Station Bahsuma, District Meerut, at 2:30 AM on 6 February 2006. The report stated that accused Ibrahim, whose house was opposite the informant’s, had objected to an alleged illicit relationship between his daughter Soni and the informant’s brother Sharafat. A marriage proposal by the informant was rejected by the accused family, leading to sustained animosity.
On the night of the incident, the accused persons, including Ibrahim and his sons—Farukh, Mussarat, Ayub, Sannaur, Kayoom, Shaukin—and two unidentified individuals, allegedly stormed into the informant’s home with firearms and sharp-edged weapons. They reportedly assaulted Soni and forcibly took Sharafat to their home. Later, the deceased bodies of both were discovered inside the house of the accused.
Sub-Inspector Resham Singh (PW-4) prepared inquest reports for both deceased individuals at the scene and indicated that Sharafat had sustained fatal injuries, while Soni had marks consistent with strangulation and assault.
Post-mortem examinations conducted by Dr. S.P. Singh (PW-3) indicated that Soni died from asphyxia due to ligature strangulation and that Sharafat died due to haemorrhage and shock caused by multiple blunt force injuries, including fractured ribs and lacerated lungs.
The Investigating Officer, Devendra Kumar (PW-9), recovered weapons including sticks and a scarf allegedly used in the crime, although public witnesses refused to sign the recovery memo due to fear. Statements under Section 161 CrPC were recorded, and the charge sheet was filed against all named accused.
The Trial Court framed charges under Sections 147 and 302 read with 149 IPC. Subsequently, on 21 May 2010, additional charges under Sections 504 and 506 IPC were framed, and a de novo trial was initiated.
During the trial, key prosecution witnesses including Raees Ahmad (PW-1) and Anwar (PW-2) initially supported the prosecution version. However, upon being recalled after amendment of charges, they became hostile and deviated from their earlier depositions. The Trial Court nevertheless found sufficient corroborative material in the form of inquest reports, post-mortem findings, FIR, and circumstantial evidence to sustain the conviction.
All accused were sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302/149 IPC and two years under Section 147 IPC, along with a fine of ₹10,000 and an additional one year of imprisonment in case of default in payment of fine.
Aggrieved by the conviction, the accused filed three separate criminal appeals—Criminal Appeal Nos. 442 of 2013, 772 of 2013, and 789 of 2013. These were heard jointly by the High Court.
The Division Bench re-examined the entire record and found no error in the appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court. The High Court recorded:
“All these appeals being devoid of merits are dismissed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence are confirmed.”
On the issue of hostile witnesses, the Court stated:
“It is settled law that even if a witness turns hostile, his earlier statement or any part of his statement which supports the prosecution case and is corroborated by other evidence on record can be relied upon.”
Addressing the evidence of Raees Ahmad (PW-1), the Bench observed:
“He was consistent in the earlier part of his deposition, identifying all the accused persons. His retraction at a later stage appears to be motivated and does not demolish the prosecution case, especially in light of the medical evidence and the site plan.”
Referring to the forensic and post-mortem reports, the Court stated:
“The post-mortem reports indicate that both deaths were homicidal. The body of Soni bore a ligature mark and signs of throttling. Sharafat suffered multiple blunt injuries resulting in fractured ribs and haemorrhage.”
Regarding the defence argument that there were no independent witnesses to the recovery, the Bench held:
“Non-examination of public witnesses in the recovery memo is not fatal to the case. Fear in the locality due to the nature of the offence was a valid explanation offered by the Investigating Officer.”
On the reliability of the FIR, the Court noted:
“The FIR was promptly lodged within three hours of the incident and contains specific allegations against all the accused persons.”
The Bench also emphasized the nature of the assault and the common object:
“The accused persons arrived together, armed, and acted in concert. Their common object of causing death is clearly established.”
In conclusion, the Court observed:
“The Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and recorded a well-reasoned conviction. There is no scope for interference by this Court in the findings of fact arrived at after proper evaluation of evidence.”
The High Court conclusively held as follows:
“All these appeals being devoid of merits are dismissed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence are confirmed.”
The Division Bench issued directions regarding the custody status of the appellants:
“The accused-appellants, Ibrahim, Kayoom and Farukh are on bail. They shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve the sentence awarded to them by the Trial Court.”
The Court also directed that necessary compliance be ensured:
“Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Trial Court concerned for information and compliance.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Amit Daga and Yogesh Srivastava, Advocates; Ajay Kumar Mishra, Arun Srivastava and Kandarp Srivastava, Advocates; Ajay Kumar Mishra, Avnish Kumar Srivastava, Sunil Kumar Yadav and V.P. Srivastava, Advocates
For the Respondents: Prem Shankar Prasad, Additional Government Advocate
Case Title: Ibrahim v. State of U.P.; Sannaur and Another v. State of U.P.; Mussarat and Others v. State of U.P.
Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:49181-DB
Case Numbers: Criminal Appeal Nos. 442/2013, 772/2013, 789/2013
Bench: Justice Siddharth, Justice Praveen Kumar Giri
[Read/Download order]
