Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG
Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, S.R. Sen, JJ.
Shri Mehboob Ansari - Petitioner
Vs.
State of Meghalaya - Respondent
Crl.A. No.3 of 2016
Decided On : 08-10-2018
CRIMINAL - EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 - SECTION 65-B - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - PRINCIPLES - APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE - KIDNAPPING AND MURDER - MOTIVE - BURDEN OF PROOF - INVESTIGATION - NEGLIGENCE - POLICE - PROSECUTION - WITNESSES - FAILURE TO PRODUCE - ADVERSE INFERENCES - FAIR TRIAL - RIGHT TO.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 364A and 302 IPC. The case was based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution alleged that the appellant had kidnapped and murdered a 5-year-old boy. The appellant denied the charges and claimed innocence.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The court found that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution were not conclusive and could be explained on the basis of other hypotheses. The court also found that the motive for the crime was not established and that the investigation was negligent. The court further held that the prosecution had failed to produce important witnesses, which gave rise to adverse inferences.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved the charges against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt? 2. Whether the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution were conclusive and could not be explained on the basis of other hypotheses? 3. Whether the motive for the crime was established? 4. Whether the investigation was negligent? 5. Whether the prosecution had failed to produce important witnesses?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The court found that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution were not conclusive and could be explained on the basis of other hypotheses. The court also found that the motive for the crime was not established and that the investigation was negligent. The court further held that the prosecution had failed to produce important witnesses, which gave rise to adverse inferences. 2. The court held that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution were not conclusive and could be explained on the basis of other hypotheses. The court found that the call for ransom was not proved, the mobile phone on which the call was received was not seized, and the CDR of the mobile phone was not produced. The court also found that the recovery of the dead body was not proved and that the accused was not present at the place of recovery. 3. The court held that the motive for the crime was not established. The court found that the accused had no motive to kidnap and murder the victim. The court also found that the theory of motive introduced by the prosecution was not proved.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges.
Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, J.
1. Vide judgment impugned dated 07.04.2016, passed in Sessions Case No.16 of 2012, appellant has been convicted for commission of the offences punishable under Sections 364A and 302 IPC.
2. Vide order impugned dated 12.04.2016, the appellant has been sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default of fine to undergo an additional one year imprisonment under Section 364A IPC and has also been sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default of fine to undergo an additional one year imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 IPC. All the sentences excluding sentences for default of fine have been directed to run concurrently.
3. Aggrieved whereof, appellant has assailed both the judgment and order impugned by medium of this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant empathically projected that the appellant is an innocent person. Learned Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in its right perspective, instead has been swayed by concocted story. The whole case hinges on circumstantial evidence. The principles enunciated to be satisfied for recording conviction on circumstantial evidence have been totally overlooked. The motive of crime is not forthcoming. The important listed witness No.2 Md. Thankir Alam Ansari has not been produced, withholding of such a witness give rise to adverse inferences.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has taken us through the testimony of all the prosecution witnesses examined by the learned Trial Court and highlighted as to how the evidence is feeble not connecting the accused in any manner with the commission of crime. In support of his submission has placed reliance on the judgments reported in (2011) 11 SCC 724, (2011) 12 SCC 545 and Meghalaya Judgment (2016) 2 MJ 498.
6. Learned Addl.PP would submit that the learned Trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence and has passed a reasoned judgment accused is proved to have been committed the offences, therefore, has been rightly convicted and sentenced. The appeal may be dismissed.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the entire record.
8. The issue of non-appreciation and mis-appreciation of evidence has been specifically highlighted while referring to the statement of witnesses, therefore, we undertake to re-appreciate the whole gamut of the case including evidence which otherwise also as a Court of appeal is required.
Background of the case:-
9. Precisely the background of the case as has emerged from perusal of the record is that on 25.11.2011 Master Samsad Ansari a 5 years old boy son of Iliaz Ansari got missing. Missing report (Ext.1) was lodged by the father of the boy informing the officer-in-charge of Laitumkhrah Beat House that his son Md. Samsad Ansari (nickname chutu) is missing from around 9:00 am of the day i.e. 25.11.2011. SI B.R. Marak was asked by the officer-in-charge of the police station to enquire and report.
10. The father of the boy (PW1) subsequently on 29.11.2011 lodged an FIR (Ext.2) mentioning therein that the missing report was lodged on 25.11.2011. However, on 26.11.2011, at 6:07 pm he (PW1) received a telephonic call from an unknown caller through mobile number 8974429693, who demanded a ransom of Rs.3 lakhs (Rupees three lakhs) only. The caller switched off his phone soon after making the demand. He strongly suspects that the unknown caller had kidnapped his son for ransom. The case may be registered against the caller of mobile number 8974429693.
11. The officer-in-charge on such FIR has directed SI B.R. Marak to enquire and report. Three persons including the accused were called to the police station. In the meantime, PW19 SI K. Shabong who on the direction of PW24 Shri Vivek Syiem, Superintendent of Police was analyzing the mobile number from which call had been received. On ascertaining that the number was of the relative of the missing boy and on learning that the entire fami
Circumstantial evidence, including recovery of crucial items, must be coherent and consistently point to guilt to meet the burden of proof required for conviction in murder cases.
The court ruled that circumstantial evidence must establish an unbroken chain of events to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The prosecution failed to establish a strong motive and sufficient circumstantial evidence to uphold a murder conviction, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
The prosecution must establish an unbroken chain of evidence beyond reasonable doubt for conviction, failing which the accused is entitled to acquittal.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
