The Allahabad High Court recently acquitted a 71-year-old man who along with three others was convicted of murder in a case dating back to 1981.
While the convict Mofeed, who has been acquitted now, had been on bail since 1985, the three other convicts – Khalil, Zaheer, and Jainuddin – had died during the pendency of their appeal against the conviction.
The division bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra observed that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
“The impugned judgment and order is set-aside, the surviving appellant Mofeed is acquitted of charge under Section 302/34 IPC, he need not surrender, this bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged,” the Court directed.
Mofeed, Khalil, Zaheer, and Jainuddin were accused of the murder of one Shaabuddin in 1981. All the accused were close relatives and had allegedly killed the victim with a country-made pistol and other weapons .
The investigation revealed that before the murder, Khalil had stolen an amount of ₹56,000 from Shaabuddin in Bombay and an FIR had been registered against him by the Police there.
After he was released on bail, Khalil had come back to the village. According to the prosecution, Khalil and others had killed Shaabuddin when a meeting had been arranged to compromise the theft case.
After they were convicted in 1983, the four appellants moved a joint appeal before the High Court. It was finally heard and reserved for decision in February this year.
The counsel representing the surviving appellant Mofeed argued that he had only been assigned the role of causing lathi blow to the victim. He was falsely implicated because he was a relative of the accused.
After analysing the trial court verdict, the Court noted that as per the investigating officer, the lane in which victim was lying in injured condition was muddy.
“But surprisingly neither the investigating officer nor the doctor who conducted postmortem on dead body of the deceased has mentioned no where that dead body was smeared with mud, this creates a serious doubt on the place of occurrence propounded in prosecution version,” it said.
It also found that an eye witness had given a contradictory statement that the place where the victim was assaulted was covered by bricks.
Thus, the Court said there was “disharmony on this point in eye witness account and evidence of investigating officer”.
The Court also found that the weapons used against the victim were not recovered in the case.
It further highlighted the glaring inconsistencies in ocular and medical evidence of the prosecution.
“The firearm injuries shown in postmortem report do not appear to have been caused by one single shot even due to dispersal of pellets, on taking a meticulous examination of the wounds and in our considered opinion there is glaring inconsistency between ocular testimony and medical evidence in regard to firearm injuries.”
[Khalil And Others vs State of UP].
