Supreme Court acquits father-son duo in 27-year old murder case

The Supreme Court recently acquitted a father-son duo in a murder case registered almost 28 years ago, after finding that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove that the two accused were guilty beyond reasonable doubt [Mohd. Muslim v. State of Uttar Pradesh (now Uttarakhand)]..In a ruling passed on June 15, Justices V Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal set aside the decisions of the trial court and the Uttarakhand High Court convicting the accused-appellants under Section 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). ."It is a case where the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the accused appellants have committed the offence beyond any reasonable doubt," the Supreme Court found..By the time the Court passed its ruling, one of the two accused had passed away while the other was 79 years old. The appeal had been filed in 2011 after the High Court's 2010 verdict. .The appellants had been sentenced to life imprisonment for the alleged murder of one, Altaf Hussain in August 1995. The appellants claimed that they had been unnecessarily framed in the case as they were new to the village..On the other hand, the prosecution's case was that the two accused had assaulted the deceased with weapons and murdered him over a land dispute, while the deceased was on his way to attend court proceedings in the land dispute..The Supreme Court, however, found that there were several discrepancies in the prosecution's version of events. .Among other factors, the Court noted that the first information report (FIR) had been ante-timed. The Court found that while the FIR was actually lodged at 1:50 PM on August 4, 1995, the time was changed to 9:00 AM by overwriting. This was done to support the prosecution's version that the deceased was on his way to court to attend morning proceedings in a land dispute case, the Supreme Court inferred. .There were several indicators that the FIR had actually been lodged in the afternoon. In this regard, the Court noted that the post-mortem was only conducted the day after the death, as the body was only produced in the evening. This was likely because the death had taken place the afternoon, the Court opined. .The Court proceeded to highlight that the FIR in a criminal case, and particularly in a murder case, is a vital and valuable piece of evidence. Infirmities, if any, in the FIR casts a doubt on its authenticity and the FIR in such cases may also lose its evidentiary value, the Court said..The Court also noted that the deceased was stated to have been accompanied by his son and nephew at the time of the incident. While so, the bench said that it is unnatural to believe that neither his son nor his nephew made any attempt to try to save the deceased from the assault of the appellants.They did not take any steps to provide the deceased with any medical aid, the Court remarked. Instead, it was stated that they rushed to lodge a complaint in the morning itself, the bench observed."The conduct of these two persons amply supports the defence version that they may not be present at the place of event," the Court said..The Court further pointed out that the prosecution had not examined any independent witness in the case or had produced before the trial court certain items allegedly left behind by the accused at the crime scene. "The presence of the accused appellants could have been easily proved by the prosecution, had the above two items recovered from the spot were produced and established to be that of the accused appellants. There is no reason or explanation for not producing the above things in Court or for withholding the same," the Court observed..In view of these, the Supreme Court proceeded to acquit the appellant remaining alive, who had undergone six years of imprisonment before he was let out on bail in 2013..[Read Judgment]