MOHD MURSHID Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order of conviction, dated 13 -4 -1993 passed by Shri S.K. Sharma, 4th Additional Session Judge, Dhanbad, in Sessions Trial No. 84 of 1990 whereby the accused appellant Md. Murshid was found to be guilty for the offence under Sections 363 and 302 of tile Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for four years and for life respectively. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The brief facts as is revealed from the materials on records are that on 13 -4 -1986 in the evening hours, the accused appellant (Md. Murshid) who was serving in the garage belonging to the informant Md. Mara/a (PW 3) slaying at his house Sadisopur in the district of Patna took away his minor son Md. Mumtaz, aged about 7/8 years from the custody of parents but die accused did not return. At about 6 p.m. on Unit date the brother of the informant namely Md. Manowar Alam (PW 11) while coming in train from Danapur towards Sadisopur saw the appellant walking away with minor Mumtaz nearby Patna Station. PW 11 after reaching home at Sadisopur enquired about Mumtaz and Murshid but the informant thought that the accused appellant might have taken Mumtaz to Patna for witnessing Circus show there and might be returning in the night hours but he did not come back nor the minor son .On the next day i.e. on 14 -4 -1986, search was made at patna for finding the where about of the appellants and minor Mumtaz but no trace could be found out. Then on 15 -4 -1986 the informant along with his nephew Nurul Hoda (PW4) came to Dhanbad in search of Murshid and Mumtaz It may mentioned here that the accused is hailing from Pandharpalha, Police station Bank More, in the district of Dhanbad There the informant reached at the residence of Jainul Abedin (PW2) and searched for the where about of Murshid and Mumtaz . As the night had fallen by that time they did not go to Md. Murshid's house but on the next day i.e. on 16 -4 -1986, they went to the residence of Md. Murshid's and found him there . On enquiry being made about Mumtaz, accused Md. Murshid replied that he would be going to hand over Mumtaz after some time, Md. Murshid was searched, then along with his elder brother Md. Imtiaj (PW)8 and the nephew of the informant Nurul Hoda (PW4) started together to hand over Mumtaz from the hideout but on the way , he tries to escape .Then Murshid was apprehended and he was assaulted by his brother .Then Md. Murshid disclosed that he would say everything about Mumtaz if he would be allowed to leave alone. In the meanwhile a man named Sarfaraz, came to the house of Md. Murshid when such interrogation was going on Md. Imtiaj came back and assured the informant that Murshid would disclose every thing and they would wait for Sarfaraz , but in the evening hours, Sarfaraz returned alone being intoxicated and could not say any thing as to what had happened and further disclose that Murshid did never come .On the next morning i.e. on 17 -4 -1986, one Moulvi Saheb disclose to the informant that he heard that a dead body. The deceased Mumtaz was lying with blood stains having injuries on head, neck and on other parts of the body and a stone was also found near the dead body having stains with blood like substance . At 9.30 a.m. on the same day i.e. on dead body of the deceased Mumtaz .The accused appellant was arrested and the statement of his elder brother Imtiaj was recorded under Section 164 Of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the court of the Magistrate. From the post mortem report, it could be detected that the in juries caused on the head region resulted in homicidal death of the deceased Mumtaz . After investigation, charge -sheet was submitted under Sections 364 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. On being committed, charge was also framed by the learned Court below under the said sections of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) The defence case is of total denial of the prosecution story. It should be mentioned here that in this case, there is no direct evidence except some circumstances against the appellant towards his involvement with the crime.