Read Time: 04 minutes
The high court noted lack of proper investigation by the police and granted the appellant benefit of doubt
The Allahabad High Court recently acquitted a man after 17 years, granting him the benefit of doubt in a murder case from 2006.
The bench of Justices Arvind Singh Sangwan and Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi found inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence, leading to the decision to set aside his conviction.
The case related to an incident that occurred on October 19, 2006, in Kannauj, Uttar Pradesh. Dinesh, a local fish seller, and Muddu, Mahfooz’s brother, were killed following a confrontation. The prosecution accused Mahfooz of shooting Dinesh with a country-made pistol. In retaliation, a mob reportedly killed Muddu at the scene.
In 2013, Mahfooz was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial court under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Mahfooz appealed the judgment, arguing that there were contradictions in the testimonies of key witnesses and that the investigation was flawed.
The defense pointed out that the two main witnesses, Subhash and Naresh, provided conflicting accounts. Subhash claimed Mahfooz shot Dinesh from close range, but Naresh described a scuffle between Dinesh and Muddu, with no clear role for Mahfooz in the fight. Additionally, Naresh admitted to fleeing the scene and moving to Delhi shortly after the incident.
The defense also criticized the police for not filing an FIR regarding Muddu's death, despite his being killed by a mob. No investigation was conducted into Muddu’s murder, raising concerns about bias.
The post-mortem findings further weakened the prosecution's case. There was no blackening or tattooing around Dinesh’s gunshot wound, which would have been expected if the shot had been fired at close range. The police also failed to recover a firearm or any forensic evidence linking Mahfooz to the crime.
Based on these discrepancies, the high court opined that there was reasonable doubt about Mahfooz's involvement. He was acquitted after spending 17 years under the shadow of the conviction.
Case Title: Mahfooz Vs. State of U.P
Please Login or Register
