In Md. Shafeeque vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices J.B. Pardowala and Vijay Bishnoi passed a 2-page long order dated May 4, 2026, wherein, it recorded that counsel appearing for the State brought to it the Court's notice that the State Government has declined to grant remission to the petitioner-convict.
The order reads:"2. We are informed that the convict is not in a stable state of mind. He seems to be suffering from undifferentiated schizophrenia. 3. We are further informed that the convict is being treated for the ailment in the jail hospital. 4. We are mindful of the fact that he is undergoing sentence past almost 21 years. 5. We want some material to be brought on record in the form of medical certificates, etc. so as to understand the exact nature of the ailment with which the petitioner is suffering and what is the way out. 6. Assuming for the moment that the petitioner is suffering from undifferentiated schizophrenia, he cannot be kept in jail for all times to come. 7. We need to find some way out to tackle this problem. 8. List immediately after ensuing summer vacations."
The case arose out of impugned final judgement dated April 4, 2016 by Justices Anjana Prakash and Rajendra Kumar Mishra in Md. Shafeeque vs. The State of Bihar (2016). The judgement reads: "12. On going through the evidence, which we have mentioned above, it appears that occurrence had taken place at 7.00 pm. in the evening at the door of the Informant, who was competent to see the occurrence. The matter was reported soon thereafter at 9.00 pm. at the Police Station, which was 5 kilometers away. The manner of occurrence, described by the Informant, is fully corroborated by the hearsay evidence of P.W.1 Sher Mohammed, P.W. 2 Md. Javed, P.W. 3 Md. Motibul and also the independent witness, Dr. Satyendra Kumar Singh (P.W.6), who found such injuries. No doubt, injury report of Noorsaba (P.W. 4) has not been brought on record but that does not appear of any importance, where the charge of 302 I.P.C. for causing the death of the deceased is concerned. We also take note of the fact that the Investigating Officer has not been examined, but there appears no contradiction of any of the witnesses on any point whatsoever which would have made prosecution case untrustworthy to any extent or of having caused prejudice to the Appellant. 13. In the result, finding no merit in the Appeal, the same is dismissed." The judgement was authored by Justice Prakash.
The appellant was convicted under section 302 of the I.P.C. by a judgment dated February 4, 2015 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Purnea in connection with a Sessions Case of 2007 and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 50000/. The case of the prosecution, is that according to Noorsaba Begam (P.W.4), mother of the deceased child is that on March 29, 2007 when her son Sohail Raza was playing with rest of the children outside, suddenly the Appellant Md. Shafeeque came with the big dagger and cut his neck. Thereafter, she learnt that another child Jilani had also been assaulted by the same Appellant. He was caught by the villagers while fleeing away with dagger.
This information was given on the same day immediately within three hours at the Police Station. During trial, the prosecution examined 7 witnesses, wheres Defence examined three witnesses. The High Court found no merit in the appeal.
P.W. 1 Sher Mohammed as also P.W. 2 Md. Javed and P.W. 3 Md. Motibul, who is father of P.W. 5 Jilani also injured in the present case are hearsay witnesses, who corroborated the fact of the Appellant suddenly assaulting the deceased Sohail Raza aged about 4 years causing his death and also causing injury to Jilani
(P.W.5). There is nothing in their cross-examination to discredit their evidence in any manner. P.W. 4 Noorsaba is the mother of the deceased, who repeated the facts given in the First Information Report to the Police Station to the extent that on the date of occurrence, while here son aged about 4 years was playing outside, suddenly the appellant came with a dragger and assaulted him on the neck and fled away. Thereafter, she went to the Police Station along with her husband and got recorded the fardbeyan. In cross-examination, she stated that it was night time when she reached the Police Station and the Investigating Officer had come next day to her villager. P.W. 5 Jilani, injured witness, who was aged about
12 years on the date of deposition and capable of understanding, stated that on the date of occurrence while he was playing suddenly he saw the appellant coming with a blood stained knife. Thereafter, he assaulted him on the neck and his hand and ran away. He was treated at Sadar Hospital, Purnia. He confirmed that his son and his father Md. Motibul (P.W. 3) were examined as witness.
The High Court observed: "There is nothing in the cross-examination which is of note."
The High Court's judgement recorded that P.W. 6 Dr. Satyendra Kumar Singh found the following injuries on the person of the deceased: On external examination –
(i) Rigor mortis was present in all limbs.
(ii) Sharp cut wound on interior part of neck cutting trachea esophagus and carotid arteries
(iii) 2” x ½” sharp cut wound on the right shoulder
(iv) ½” x ¼” sharp cut wound over left shoulder joint.
On Dissection –
Head - NAD, Neck as mentioned above, chest –heart – all chambers are empty, lungs pale, abdomen– liver/spleen/kidney – pale, stomach contains semidigested food. Small and large intestine – gas and fasces. Urinary bladder –empty.
Time elapsed since death - Within 24 hours. Cause of death was due to hemorrhage and shock due to above mentioned injuries caused by sharp cutting weapon.
10. P.W. 7 Barik and P.W.8 Md. Munshi have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile.
11. D.W. 1 M. Kumar Harijan and D.W. 2 Md. Ameer had stated that the Appellant had not caused the death of the deceased and DW. 3 Himat had stated that the Appellant was mentally unbalanced.
Earlier, by order dated April 20, 2015, the High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice L. Narasimha Reddy and Justice Sudhir Singh had declined to grant bail to the appellant.
The High Court's order reads:"Though it is represented that the appellant is in prison since last 8 years in connection with Sessions Case No.797 of 2007 arising out of Amour P.S. Case No.29 of 2007, pending in the court of 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Purnea, for the present we are not inclined to grant bail. Prayer for bail is rejected. It is left open to the appellant to renew his request after six months."
No comments:
Post a Comment