STATE V. MOHD. ZAHID(28th AUGUST 2019)

CASE:- STATE V. MOHD. ZAHID

FACTS OF THE CASE

At Nangloi Station related to the stabbing of a person at the receipt of DD. No. 37A Ex PW 13/A, along with the PW Ct. Vijay the PW19 SI Prem reached the spot and after reaching they came to know about the injured person that he had been removed from there and placed to hospital by the PCR Van. But, there was no eye witness found on the spot for the deceased person. Hence, at the SGM hospital, both the police officials went to it and also collected some information from the hospital after the doctor told them that the patient was brought dead. 

Then the dead body was inspected by SI Prem and he took photographs to find the identity of that person from his mobile only. But in the hospital also there was no eye witness. Dead body of the deceased person has been put into the mortuary in that same hospital and the crime team has been called through Ct. Vijay. 

Under section 302 of Indian Penal Code, the SI Prem got recorded and for the further investigation this case was handed over to inspector Dheeraj Kumar. One eye witness has been found, recorded and disclosed the name of the Mohd. Zahid who was an accused person of the case. The knife and the clothes worn by him were recovered at the same time. Charge of punishable offence under section 302 Indian Penal Code was made against him so he pleaded no guilty and trial has been claimed. Against  the accused person, a charge sheet has been filed for commission of the offence under the section 302 of Indian Penal Code.

ISSUES RAISED IN THE CASE

Q. Is the definition of “murder” has been given correctly under section 300 IPC or not?

CONTENTION OF THE PETITIONER

For the accused, per contra Ld. Argued that there was no material evidence against the Mohd. Zahid and beyond reasonable doubt the prosecution have failed by proving the case. Further, it was submitted that the weapon has no recovery and also the accused person or witness has not been identified by any of the persons for committing offence. Definition of murder has been given in the section 300 Indian Penal Code that if the murder is done intentionally for causing the injury to the person. And under section 299 IPC there is a definition of culpable homicide that has reference in the definition of the term murder, which means that who causes death with the intention by doing any kind of act of causing death.

CONTENTION OF THE RESPONDENT

Mohd. Zahid who was an accused person inspected DWI Mohd. Faizan in the defence of him who deposed that, the accused person i.e Mohd. Zahid and he lives in the same area where he has his residence. He doesn’t know him that much in the proper way. He doesn’t have any kind of relation with him. He was just a known person to him.

He claimed that he was an innocent person. By mistake he was involved in the present case. He was defending him by saying that he went outside with his friend with the scooty. After that his scooty has slipped on road due to which, his clothes got torn and got injured. And due to injury the blood was flowing and his clothes got stained from the blood. The policemen called them in the police station and after reaching the police station, he found that his parents had also been called to the police station by the police officials. His parents brought him clothes at the police station only and at the same he changed his clothes and clothes that were stained by blood had been taken by the police and they seized them. For the purpose of investigation, the police don’t allow him to go anywhere. Police also took his friend with them but they sent him back the other day after asking some of their queries on the behalf of the investigation. 

JUDGEMENT OF THE CASE

It is further the profit of the doubt in the trial story that goes to the accused person and it entitles the acquittal from the accused. Against the accused, to prove the charges, there were 20 witnesses in all at the trial.

For the betterment of the convenience, a small description of all the trials of the witness as well as their affidavit of the case state v. Mohd. Zahid F.I.R No. 594/2014, session case no:- 57515/2016. The conclusion of the prosecution evidence, under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code statement of the accused has been written.

In the record room, the file has been consigned after the important compliance. To the state there was a confiscation of the case properties. If there was no appeal against the acquittal by the prosecution within the given time of limitation then as per he rules the case properties will be disposed of. Gorakh signed digitally by Gorakh Nath Pandey and announced in the open court. To the district legal services authority the family of the son who was deceased are here for consideration for the amount of the compensation that is suitable.

CONCLUSION

keeping in view, the material available and the settled law, there is consideration in court in view that the trial has failed to introduce the case against the accused person for reasonable doubt. It is not safe for the accused for the conviction and in these cases there will be a benefit of doubt for the accused person and charge framed against him to the acquittal.

REFERENCES

• https://indiankanoon.org/

This article was written by Anjali Agarwal, a student of GLA University and an intern in Legal Vidhiya.

Admin