CW-2026-0014West Delhi, DelhiJudgment 4 April 2026

Haji Mohd. Altaf vs State; [name withheld] vs State NCT of Delhi; Rajouri Garden Man (deceased) thr. LRs vs State

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeals of lawyer Haji Mohd. Altaf (A1) and SI (A2) and upheld their 2016 conviction for conspiring to frame a Rajouri Garden man in a fabricated gang-rape case on 29 August 2000, to avenge an earlier molestation complaint and extort money. The SI prepared false records, arranged the PCR van and planted hair in the car; a Rajouri Garden man was arrested, beaten in custody and harassed through protracted proceedings until DNA evidence exonerated him and the Crime Branch discharged him in April 2001. The Court held accomplice testimony admissible, observed a more stringent sentence was warranted, and enhanced the compensation to a Rajouri Garden man's legal representatives to the entire fine of Rs 3,00,000. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

Externally reportedV2
What this record means

This page documents a court-adjudicated case from the judgment and cited sources below. Findings are attributed to the court; this record does not add findings of its own.

How verification works →

Report card

By judgment dated 4 April 2026 in CRL.A. 286/2016, CRL.A. 326/2016, CRL.A. 691/2016, the Delhi High Court (Coram: Chandrasekharan Sudha, J.) affirmed the conviction of the Sub-Inspector, Police Post Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi Police, and directed payment of compensation of Rs 3 lakh (Rs 3,00,000).

Register number
DL 04 CW 0026
Case reference
CRL.A. 286/2016, CRL.A. 326/2016, CRL.A. 691/2016
Court and date
Delhi High Court (Coram: Chandrasekharan Sudha, J.), 4 April 2026
Officer(s) at the material time
Sub-Inspector, Police Post Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi Police
Present service status
Not ascertained from the cited sources.
Provisions invoked
Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 195 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 389 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
Finding of the Court (extract)
“A2, a police officer, whose duty is to prevent crimes, has in complete disregard to the same, indulged in acts which are in no way justifiable.” (at para 39)
Verdict, sentence and quantum
Conviction upheld. Sentence: imprisonment and fine; maximum substantive term of 4 years. Compensation: Rs 3 lakh (Rs 3,00,000).
Present status of the proceedings
The judgment is recent and may be subject to appeal; the pendency of an appeal is not a finding.

Compiled from the judgment and the cited sources. Findings are those of the court; this card adds none of its own.

Judgment dated 4 April 2026. This judgment may still be subject to appeal; initiation or pendency of an appeal is not a finding.

Recorded allegations

1
OtherPrimary
Material fact supported

Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.

Official finding: supports allegation.

What the court found

Holding not recorded separately.

“A2, a police officer, whose duty is to prevent crimes, has in complete disregard to the same, indulged in acts which are in no way justifiable.” (para 39)

Institutional response

2
Date not established

Conviction

Concluded
Trial court (as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment) External · Binding

The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Delhi High Court judgment.

Conviction · Supports allegation.
Source: CRL.A. 286/2016, CRL.A. 326/2016, CRL.A. 691/2016
Not yet re-checked.
4 Apr 2026

Order issued

Concluded
Delhi High Court External · Binding

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.

Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card).
Source: CRL.A. 286/2016, CRL.A. 326/2016, CRL.A. 691/2016
Not yet re-checked.

Follow-up history

1
19 Sep 2026

(Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass; skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl))

Corrections (0): No corrections recorded.

Review: Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded.

Keep exploring

These records are listed together because they share a state or a topic. That does not mean they are connected.