Srinagar: A Sessions court here on Saturday convicted a man from Ahmad Nagar Soura for committing culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
The convict Mukthar Ahmad Shah, his father Ghulam Mohammad Shah and his two daughters were tried for offences under sections 302 (murder), 341 (wrongful restraint), 34 (offence done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence of offence) of RPC. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against them.
Khursheed Ul Islam, 1st Additional Sessions Judge Srinagar, while pronouncing his verdict observed “the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt against the accused No 1 Mukhtar Ahmad for committing culpable homicide not amounting to murder of the deceased (Ghulam Ahmed Mir, son of Wahab Mir).”
Accordingly Mukhtar Ahmad was convicted for offence under section 304 (causing death by doing rash/negligent act not amounting to murder).
The two sisters of the accused were acquitted of the charges levelled against them. Their father had died during the trial.
The brief facts of the case, according to prosecution, are that on June 07, 2018, one Shakeela came to the Police Station Soura with a written report that on the preceding day her husband Ghulam Ahmed Mir was beaten to death by the accused Mukhktar Ahmed and his siblings. He had been fatally injured by the accused during a quarrel over irrigation of land at Mouza Pandach. The victim was allegedly attacked with a hard baton and sharp weapon on the back of head, following which the accused had fled the scene.
The trial court held “the parties have worked themselves into a fury on account of verbal altercation in the beginning. When the deceased came on spot, he gave a push to the accused Mukhtar. When the other accused arrived on the spot there was some altercation. The accused got furious and he hit the deceased on his head with a lathi”.
It further said that it can be safely concluded that the accused were without premeditation and had acted in a sudden quarrel in a sudden fight and during the heat of provocation. “The accused are entitled to benefit under exception to section 300 RPC and are guilty of offence under section 304.”
The court concluded that the prosecution has failed to establish that there was pre-arranged plan between the accused persons, as such the accused are not vicariously liable under section 34 RPC.
It said none of the witnesses catalogued by prosecution have stated regarding disappearance of the shovel (another article that was used in the quarrel by the accused), neither through direct or circumstantial evidence. As such the case does not attract punishment to accused persons under section 201 RPC.
