Acquittal in Mira Road Murder: Court Criticizes Prosecution for Lapses and Insufficient Circumstantial Evidence.


23 April 2025 Acquittal >> Criminal Law   |   Evidence >> Criminal Law  

In a significant judgment of Saiyyad Musaddik Vahiduddin Kadri Imran Mansuri Hasani v/s The State of Maharashtra Through Mira Road Police Station, the Bombay High Court has overturned the conviction of a man sentenced to life imprisonment for the 2003 murder of a scrap vendor in Mira Road. The court, in its order, acquitted the appellant, citing the prosecution's failure to establish a complete chain of incriminating circumstances beyond reasonable doubt. The court also strongly criticized the prosecution's handling of the case.


The prosecution's case rested on the premise that the appellant had murdered Julfikar Umarkhan, beheaded him, set the body ablaze in a flat, and then attempted to conceal his own identity to evade pending court proceedings. The headless body was discovered in a bathroom of a Mira Road flat on August 15, 2003. While the flat belonged to the appellant's brother, the prosecution alleged the appellant had been residing there.

 

 
 



Despite the gruesome nature of the crime, the court highlighted several critical flaws in the prosecution's evidence. Firstly, the court pointed out the prosecution's failure to conclusively identify the deceased as Julfikar Umarkhan. No relatives were examined, and no evidence was presented to show that Julfikar had been missing since the incident. The basis for the prosecution's claim regarding the deceased's identity remained unclear.


Secondly, the court scrutinized the prosecution's reliance on the "last seen" theory. The testimonies of several witnesses who had seen the appellant in the vicinity prior to the incident were deemed insufficient. The court clarified that "last seen evidence" requires witnesses to have seen the deceased in the company of the accused, which was not the case here.

Furthermore, the court noted the absence of crucial physical evidence, such as the murder weapon, the appellant's clothes, or the victim's head.

The prosecution also attempted to invoke Section 106 of the Evidence Act, arguing that since the appellant was allegedly residing in the flat, the burden of proof shifted to him to explain the circumstances. However, the court, citing a Supreme Court precedent, clarified that Section 106 can only be applied when the prosecution has already established a complete chain of incriminating circumstances. In this case, the initial burden of proof on the prosecution was not adequately discharged.

The trial court had heavily relied on the appellant's failure to explain his presence in the flat. However, the appellate court emphasized that the prosecution cannot be absolved of its primary duty to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

A significant lapse on the part of the prosecution was also highlighted. Despite possessing evidence of seven prior cases against the appellant (including serious charges under TADA and the Arms Act), the prosecutor failed to present this crucial information in court to establish a potential motive for the appellant to conceal his identity. The court expressed strong displeasure at this oversight, stating that the prosecutor had conducted the case "extremely casually" and failed in their duty to bring all relevant material on record. The court also noted the improper handling of a witness who did not support the prosecution's case.

Considering the totality of the evidence, the Bombay High Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the incriminating circumstances against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were quashed, and the appellant was acquitted. The court ordered the appellant's immediate release if not required in any other case and directed the refund of any fine paid.

In light of the significant prosecutorial lapses, the court deemed it appropriate to send a copy of its order to the Director of Prosecutions for necessary action against the prosecutor who handled the case.


Section 302., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Indian Penal Code, 1860  

Section 106, Indian Evidence Act - 1872  

Indian Evidence Act, 1872  

Arms Act, 1959