Allahabad High Court Acquits Murder Convict Who Spent 17 Years In Jail By According Benefit Of Doubt

The Allahabad High Court last week acquitted a man convicted for the offence of murder by a Sessions Court in May 2013 and sentenced to life imprisonment, as it noted that there were material contradictions in the statement of the informant and the eye-witness. The acquittal has been granted based on the benefit of the doubt. A bench of Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan and Justice Mohd Azhar Husain Idrisi also considered the fact that the appellant-accused was in judicial custody for 17 years of actual sentence and 20 years of total sentence with remission, and despite this, his case was not considered for premature release. As per the prosecution's case, the informant, brother of the deceased/Dinesh, alleged in the complaint that on October 19, 2006, he and his brother, a fish seller, were returning home when the appellant-accused (Mahfooz) and one Muddu stopped his brother on the way and demanded money. When the deceased refused, Muddu grabbed him, and Mahfooz shot him with the pistol that he was holding, resulting in his death. The informant witnessed the entire incident. It was further alleged that villagers gathered at the scene and tried to catch Muddu, who sustained minor injuries (and died later on) but managed to escape by brandishing his gun. Interestingly, in this case, although two persons were murdered, i.e. Dinesh, who is the brother of the informant and Muddu, who is the brother of the accused-appellant, no FIR was registered regarding the murder of Muddu. However, as mentioned above, the Trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to life imprisonment in its impugned judgment. Now, challenging his conviction, Mehfooz moved the High Court, wherein his counsel argued that arguing that despite two deaths occurring (Dinesh and Muddu), an FIR was registered only for Dinesh's murder and not for Muddu's death. The Counsel for the accused-appellant also claimed that PW-1 (informant) and PW-6 (Naresh) had killed Muddu, but the police had not registered an FIR to protect them. It was also submitted that there were material contradictions in the statements of both the witnesses, i.e. PW-1 and PW-6. After hearing counsel for the parties and on re-appreciation of the entire evidence, the Court found merit in the present appeal for the following reasons: A. There are material contradictions in the statement of informant PW-1 and eye-witness- PW-6. B. The prosecution failed to explain why no FIR was registered with regard to the murder of Muddu, the brother of the appellant, who, according to PW-6, had a scuffle with deceased – Dinesh at the place of the incident when deceased Dinesh, brother of the informant, was fired by the appellant and murdered. C. It is the case of the prosecution that many people at the spot caught hold of Muddu and gave him merciless beatings with sticks and iron rods, which resulted in the breaking of all the bones of his body; he was murdered at the spot, but no police action was taken although a cognizable offence was committed. D. The appellant was never arrested at the spot and was arrested after one year of incident and no firearm was recovered from him. E. The police did not recover any empty cartridge at the spot and never sent it for forensic examination. F. As per PW-1, the firearm injury was caused to deceased Dinesh from point-blank range, whereas the statement of PW-2- the Doctor who conducted the post-mortem, reflects that no blackening or tattooing was found, which shows that the fire was shot from a distance. G. As per the I.O., PW-3, he first prepared the Panchayatnama of Muddu, brother of appellant, and then of Dinesh, brother of the informant. Even PW-2, Dr. Narendra Kumar who conducted the postmortem stated that he first conducted the post-mortem of Muddu and then of Dinesh, which raises a suspicion that Muddu was murdered prior to murder of Dinesh and in the absence of any FIR or investigation being conducted regarding death of Muddu who was beaten to death by the mob at the spot, it is apparent that the police conducted no proper investigation. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to be given the benefit of the doubt. In view of above, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Case title - Mahfooz vs. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 180 of 2014] Case citation: Click Here ToRead/Download Order

Allahabad High Court Acquits Murder Convict Who Spent 17 Years In Jail By According Benefit Of Doubt

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags