SHILLONG: The High Court of Meghalaya has set aside the life imprisonment of an accused in the murder case of a boy in the city and directed that he be released.
In 2016, Mehboob Ansari, the uncle of five-year-old Mohammad Shamsad Ansari, a kindergarten student of Arya Kanya Vidyalaya in Laitumkhrah, was awarded life imprisonment by the Court of Sessions Judge AM Ripnar for abducting him for ransom and murdering the boy in 2011.
However, after hearing the petition by Mehboob on Monday, the division bench comprising Chief Justice Mohammad Yaqoob Mir and Justice SR Sen said the manner in which the matter has been handled by the investigating officer and Vivek Syiem, then Additional Superintendent of Police (Crime) and other police officers, officials suffice to say that it is quite deplorable.
“It appears that the Trial Court has been swayed by sentiments and in the process has not appreciated the evidence properly,” the court said.
Though the police concluded that the accused made a ransom call to the relatives and kidnapped the boy, the mobile set in fact belonged to one Md. Thankir Alam and it was not seized.
Moreover, the CDR of the number was not produced before the Trial Court.
“According to the three witnesses, it is on the basis of the CDR report of the mobile number of Md Thankir Alam and analysing they could track down IMEI which finally led them to say that call had come from the mobile set of the accused. Here the question as to why the CDR report of mobile phone of the accused was not collected which would show as to whether any call had come on that mobile. This important link for the stated reason has remained to be proved,” the court said.
The court said there are contradictions in the statements and variations got compounded by the fact that the mobile set on which call for ransom was received has not been seized at all.
“Md Thankir Alam who received call for ransom, though listed as prosecution witness has not been produced before the Trial Court. He was a vital link as also relevant person to state as to when he received the call for ransom. Withholding of such witness gives rise to so many inferences may be in case he would have been examined, he would have given different twist to the case. Why he was not produced is a question which has remained to be explained,” the court said.
