Court finds gross misuse of power by accused, upholds convictions under multiple IPC sections, and increases compensation to Rs. 3 lakh for victim’s family due to severe mental agony and custodial violence.
In a landmark judgment delivered on April 4, 2026, the Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of a lawyer, Haji Mohd. Altaf (A1), and a police officer, Narender Singh (A2), for conspiring to falsely implicate an innocent man, Sushil Gulati (PW12), in a fabricated rape case. The court found that the accused abused their positions of trust and authority, leading to grave injustice, custodial violence, and mental harassment of the victim. The judgment also enhanced the compensation payable to the victim’s legal heirs from Rs. 2 lakh to Rs. 3 lakh, reflecting the severity of the victim's suffering.
Background and Trial:
The case originated in 2000 when Sushil Gulati was falsely implicated in a rape case orchestrated by a conspiracy involving the accused lawyer, the police officer, and others. The victim was harassed in custody and repeatedly subjected to custodial violence. Subsequent investigations by the Crime Branch revealed the innocence of Sushil Gulati, leading to his discharge in 2001.
However, the conspirators, including the accused lawyer and police officer, had fabricated evidence and used accomplices to falsely implicate Gulati. The trial court convicted the accused under Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy), 193 (false evidence), 195 (giving false evidence), 218 (public servant framing an incorrect record), 465 (forgery), and 389 (putting person in fear of accusation) of the Indian Penal Code. They were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment ranging from one to four years along with fines.
Key Evidence and Court Findings:
The prosecution’s case was supported by testimonies of accomplices and other witnesses who cooperated in the fabricated plot. The Delhi High Court clarified that accomplice witnesses are competent under Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and their evidence, corroborated by other material, was reliable. The court rejected defense arguments that questioned the admissibility of such testimonies, relying on precedents including Lakshmipat Choraria v. State of Maharashtra and Chandran alias Manichan v. State of Kerala.
Testimonies revealed how the accused lured a woman, PW1 Rajni Gupta, to falsely accuse Sushil Gulati after intoxicating her and staging an incident. The police officer (A2) was found present during critical steps of the conspiracy, including transporting the victim and fabricating police records. The court noted repeated threats and harassment by the accused against the victim and witnesses.
The court expressed grave concern over the trial court’s repeated adjournments and failure to cross-examine the victim witness promptly, which caused prolonged harassment to the victim, who ultimately passed away before justice could be fully served. The Delhi High Court invoked Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act to admit the victim’s unchallenged testimony posthumously.
Judicial Observations and Sentencing:
The High Court held that the conduct of the lawyer and police officer amounted to a serious breach of trust and a blatant misuse of their professional positions. It emphasized that such acts undermine public confidence in the justice system and must be dealt with sternly to deter future misconduct.
While dismissing the appeals filed by the accused, the court partially allowed the appeal by the victim’s legal heirs for enhancement of compensation. Considering the prolonged mental agony, humiliation, and custodial violence suffered by the victim, the court enhanced the compensation from Rs. 2,00,000 to Rs. 3,00,000, equivalent to the total fine imposed on the accused.
The sentences imposed by the trial court were maintained with the direction that the compensation amount be paid from the fine collected.
Significance:
This judgment underscores the judiciary’s intolerance towards corruption and collusion between legal practitioners and law enforcement officials to pervert the course of justice. It also reinforces the legal position regarding the admissibility of accomplice evidence and the protection of witnesses, especially victims, in criminal trials.
The court’s decision sends a strong message that the abuse of legal and police authority to falsely implicate innocent persons will attract severe punishment and compensation for the victims.
Bottom Line:
False implication in rape case - Lawyer and police officer conspired to implicate an innocent man in a fabricated rape case, resulting in his custodial violence and harassment. Compensation enhanced due to the extent of humiliation and mental agony suffered by the victim.
Statutory provision(s):
Indian Penal Code Sections 120B, 193, 195, 218, 465, 389; Indian Evidence Act Sections 33, 118, 133; Criminal Procedure Code Sections 207, 209, 313, 372, 482
Haji Mohd. Altaf v. State, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2877809
