Giving the benefit of doubt, the Bombay High Court has quashed and set aside life imprisonment awarded to a 25-year-old resident of Solapur for murdering a person over bouncing of a cheque issued by the latter.
Acquitting Mudassar Nasir Bagwan alias Mujju Merchant from murder charges, a bench headed by Justice P V Hardas said there was no evidence to connect the appellant with the crime.
According to the prosecution, the incident occurred on November 26, 2011, when the accused attacked Altaf in a public place over a financial dispute as a result of which he succumbed to injuries. Mudassar was arrested and tried before a Solapur court which convicted him in August 2013.
Also Read
Interestingly, the conviction of the accused rested upon one piece of evidence - seizure of three swords and clothes of the convict which were stained with his blood group 'A' and recovered at his instance.
The court, however, held that none of the prosecution witnesses had deposed that the clothes which were seized belonged to the accused and that he was seen wearing these clothes at the time of the incident.
The court also noted that there was no evidence to indicate that the appellant was one of the assailants who had inflicted injuries to Altaf.
"In respect of the seizure of the clothes and weapons at the behest of the accused, we do not find any evidence about sealing of any article immediately upon its seizure," the judges further noted.
The medical officer had examined the weapons prior to the articles being sent to the chemical analyser. He did not depose that he had received the weapons in a sealed condition and that after examining them, he had re-sealed the articles, said the bench.
"In the absence of satisfactory evidence in respect of sealing of weapons and clothes on seizure, we find that no reliance can be placed on the finding of blood of 'A' group by the chemical analyser on the clothes and the weapons.
"If this evidence is left out of consideration, there is no evidence which would be sufficient for sustaining the conviction of the appellant," the bench observed.
