The Allahabad High Court has acquitted a 71-year-old man named Mofeed, who was convicted in a 1981 murder case. The case involved the killing of one Shaabuddin, and Mofeed, along with three other relatives, was accused of the crime. While the other three convicts—Khalil, Zaheer, and Jainuddin—died during the appeal process, Mofeed remained on bail since 1985.
Background of the Case
The case dates back to 1981 when Mofeed and his co-accused were charged with the murder of Shaabuddin. It was alleged that Khalil had previously stolen ₹56,000 from Shaabuddin in Bombay, and after being released on bail, he returned to the village. The prosecution claimed that Khalil, along with Mofeed and the other accused, killed Shaabuddin during a meeting arranged to settle the theft dispute.
In 1983, Mofeed and the others were convicted under Section 302/34 IPC (Indian Penal Code) and sentenced for their involvement in the murder. All four convicts had filed a joint appeal, which was heard earlier this year.
Acquittal Due to Lack of Evidence
The High Court, while reviewing the case, found several inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence. Justice Siddharth and Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra highlighted that the prosecution failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court observed that there were contradictions between the witness testimonies and the medical evidence.
One major inconsistency involved the place of the crime. The investigating officer had stated that the victim was found injured in a muddy lane. However, neither the officer nor the doctor mentioned any mud on the victim’s body during the postmortem, raising doubts about the prosecution’s version of the events. Additionally, an eyewitness had provided conflicting information about the location, stating that the area was paved with bricks.
Discrepancies in Medical and Eyewitness Evidence
The court also noted that the weapons used in the attack were never recovered, which further weakened the prosecution’s case. The postmortem report revealed firearm injuries, but the wounds did not align with the witness accounts of a single gunshot. The court found glaring discrepancies between the medical evidence and the eyewitness testimonies, particularly regarding the nature of the injuries.
Given these inconsistencies, the court ruled that the case against Mofeed was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The court set aside the previous judgment, acquitted Mofeed, and canceled his bail bonds.
Conclusion
The acquittal of Mofeed in this decades-old case emphasizes the importance of thorough and consistent evidence in legal proceedings. The Allahabad High Court’s decision underscores that discrepancies between witness accounts and medical reports can lead to serious doubts about the prosecution’s case, resulting in acquittal.
Be a part our social media community:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/IndianMan.in?mibextid=ZbWKwL
Instagram:
https://www.instagram.com/indianman.in?igsh=MWZ2N3N0ZmpwM3l3cw==
