The Supreme Court has acquitted a father and son who were previously found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment in a murder case that dates back 27 years.
Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Justice Pankaj Mithal, while delivering the verdict on the appeal filed by Mohammad Muslim against the State of Uttar Pradesh (now Uttarakhand), cited the failure to establish the benefits of doubt and the prosecution's inability to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt as the basis for the acquittal.
Brief Facts:
The case revolved around a land dispute between Altaf Hussain, the alleged victim, and Shamsad, the appellants. According to the prosecution's account, Altaf Hussain, accompanied by his son and nephew, was cycling when the appellants attacked them with weapons, resulting in their deaths. Two individuals who happened upon the scene tried to apprehend the appellants, who fled towards the forest, leaving behind their blanket and bicycle.
An FIR was registered four days later, with the investigating officer allegedly seizing the appellants' bicycle and blanket but failing to present them as evidence before the court. Throughout the trial, the appellants maintained their innocence, claiming that no such incident had occurred and that they were being falsely implicated due to being newcomers in the village.
In 1998, the Sessions Court found the appellants guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing them to life imprisonment and imposing a fine. The High Court upheld the conviction and sentence in 2010. Subsequently, in 2011, the appellants appealed to the Supreme Court, and in 2021, the appeal against one of the appellants was dismissed.
Observations by the Court:
The Supreme Court bench noted the unnatural behavior of the deceased's son and nephew, who did not intervene when their father was allegedly attacked, and the fact that two other individuals came from a distance to help the deceased. Additionally, the deceased was not taken to the hospital, but an FIR was immediately lodged. These factors, according to the court, strongly supported the defense's contention that the appellants could not have been present at the scene of the crime.
Given the lack of credible eyewitnesses and the failure to establish the presence of the accused at the crime scene, the Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution had not proven the charges beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the benefit of doubt was granted to the appellants, resulting in their exoneration from the crime.
Case Title: Mohd. Muslim Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (Now Uttarakhand), 2023 Latest Caselaw 527 SC
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Mithal
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No.1089 OF 2011
Citation: 2023 Latest Caselaw 527 SC
Advocates of the Petitioners: Prafulla Kumar Behera, Advocate, SS Nehra, AOR Vikrant Nehra, Advocate and Mamta Bhola, Advocate.
Advocates of the Respondent: Ashutosh Kumar Sharma, Advocate and Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, AOR.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
