Supreme Court Acquits Father-Son Duo In A 27 Years Old Murder Case By According Benefit Of Doubt

The Supreme Court has acquitted a father-son duo in a twenty-seven years old murder case, who were convicted by the Sessions Court and High Court and were sentenced to life imprisonment for committing murder. The acquittal has been granted based on benefit of doubt and the failure of prosecution to prove that the Appellants have committed the offence beyond any reasonable doubt.

The Bench comprising of Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Justice Pankaj Mithal while adjudicating an appeal filed in Mohd. Muslim v State of Uttar Pradesh (Now Uttarakhand), has held, “Thus, in the absence of any credible eye witness to the incident and the fact that the presence of the accused appellants at the place of incident is also not well established, we are constrained to accord benefit of doubt to both the accused appellants”.

BACKGROUND FACTS

Mr. Altaf Hussain allegedly had certain land dispute with the Mohd. Muslim and Shamshad (“Appellants”). As per the prosecution’s version, one day in 1995 Mr. Altaf Hussain was going on a bicycle with his son and nephew when the Appellants assaulted him with “tabal” and “axe” and he died. When alarm was raised, two persons came and tried to get hold of the Appellants but the latter had escaped towards the jungle leaving behind their blanket and cycle at the place of incident.

On 04.08.1995 a chick First Information Report (“FIR”) was registered, which was sent to the Court after a delay of four days. The Investigating Officer though allegedly recovered the cycle and blanket of the Appellants from the place of incident, but these evidences were never produced before the Court.

During the trial, the Appellants denied their involvement in the crime, while submitting that no such incident took place and they were being falsely framed as they are new to the village.

On 25.04.1998, the Sessions Court convicted the Appellants under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) for committing murder of Altaf Hussain. The Appellants were sentenced to life imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs. 20,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, they have been ordered to undergo further six months of rigorous imprisonment.

On 10.09.2010 the High Court upheld the conviction and sentence. Consequently, in 2011 the Appellants filed an appeal before the Supreme Court challenging their conviction. The appeal stood abated against the Appellant No. 2 on 16.08.2021.

SUPREME COURT VERDICT

The Bench took the view that the behaviour of the deceased’s son and nephew appeared unnatural. They did not intervene when their father was allegedly being assaulted by the Appellants, in fact two other people came to save the deceased from a distance. The deceased was not even taken to hospital but an FIR was lodged immediately. “Therefore, the conduct of these two persons amply supports the defence version that they may not be present at the place of event.”

It has been observed that the prosecution failed to prove to the hilt that the accused were involved in the assault and death of Altaf Hussain.

Benefit of doubt given for absence of credible eye witness and failure to establish presence of accused at the place of incident

The Bench accorded benefit of doubt to the Appellant on the reasons mentioned hereunder:

“The totality of the facts and circumstances especially the unnatural behaviour and conduct of the son and nephew of the deceased Altaf Hussain, ante-timing of the FIR and that the ‘loi (blanket) and the cycle alleged to be that of the accused appellants left behind at the site of the incident were not produced before the Court, compels us to doubt the presence of the son and nephew of the deceased Altaf Hussain at the site. Thus, in the absence of any credible eye witness to the incident and the fact that the presence of the accused appellants at the place of incident is also not well established, we are constrained to accord benefit of doubt to both the accused appellants”.

It was further observed that even if the minor discrepancies in oral evidence are ignored, then the delay in conducting the post-mortem, the difference in the name of the weapons of crime, which are similar types of instruments for cutting crops, etc.; the prosecution has failed to prove that the Appellants have committed the offence beyond any reasonable doubt.

The Bench has set aside the order of conviction which passed by the Session Court and affirmed by the High Court. Accordingly, the Appellant has been acquitted by giving the benefit of doubt.

Also Read -Recent Acquittals From Supreme Court Reflect Deep Malaise In Our Criminal Trial System

Case Title: Mohd. Muslim v State of Uttar Pradesh (Now Uttarakhand)

Citation:  2023 LiveLaw (SC) 489

Counsel For Appellant(s): Mr. Prafulla Kumar Behera, Adv. Mr. S. S. Nehra, AOR Mr. Vikrant Nehra, Adv. Ms. Mamta Bhola, Adv.

Counsel For Respondent(s): Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, AOR.

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment