GANDERBAL 30TH SEPTEMBER 2026:-
Ms. Fozia Paul, Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ganderbal, today delivered the verdict in State (UT of J&K) v. Mohammad Shafi Magray, arising out of FIR No. 33/2018 of Police Station Kheerbawani by then Inspector Salfie Arshid and convicted accused Mohammad Shafi Magray, S/o Mohammad Sidiq Magray, R/o Chundina, Ganderbal, for offences punishable under Sections 302, 379 and 201 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC).
The accused was, however, acquitted of the charge under Section 364 RPC, the Court holding that the prosecution had failed to prove the distinct ingredients of abduction by force or deceitful inducement beyond reasonable doubt.The case related to the death of Mohammad Yousuf Khanday, who had left his home on 31 May 2018 for J&K Bank, Chundina, to withdraw money and thereafter went missing.
His body was recovered on 2 June 2018 from fields adjoining Shallabugh/Batagund. The prosecution case was based substantially on circumstantial evidence, there being no eyewitness to the actual assault.
The Court found that medical evidence established that the deceased had suffered a fracture in the posterior occipital region with a large extradural haematoma and that death had resulted from massive blunt-force head trauma. On an assessment of the medical evidence together with the surrounding circumstances, the Court held the death to be homicidal.
A significant link in the chain of circumstances was the documented monetary liability of the accused towards the deceased. An independent petition writer proved an affidavit acknowledging a liability of ₹50,000, while the handwriting expert connected the signatures appearing on the document with those of the accused.
The Court treated the outstanding debt as a proved motive, though only as a supporting circumstance and not as a substitute for substantive proof.The Court described the use of the deceased’s ATM card immediately after his disappearance as the most compelling part of the prosecution case. Bank records established that the deceased’s ATM card was used at Shaheen Service Station, Nadihal, on 1 June 2018 for a transaction of ₹4,000.
Fayaz Ahmad Dar, who knew the accused prior to the occurrence and was travelling with him, testified that the accused presented a card and received ₹4,000 at the petrol pump. Evidence also established another transaction of ₹500 at Nagbal on 2 June 2018.The deceased’s ATM card and ₹11,700 in cash were subsequently recovered from beneath matting in a room of the accused’s house pursuant to information attributed to the accused.
The Court also relied upon the discovery of torn pieces of the debt instrument bearing the accused’s signatures, while carefully excluding or assigning limited weight to evidence that was not satisfactorily proved.
While evaluating the case, the Court specifically excluded the disputed CCTV footage and fingerprint material from the core chain of incriminating circumstances and did not invoke the conventional “last-seen” theory. It also took note of deficiencies in the investigation and accorded limited weight to the recovery of the alleged weapon.
The Court nevertheless held that the remaining admissible evidence constituted an independently proved and complete chain of circumstances.Applying the settled principles governing cases based on circumstantial evidence, including the tests laid down in Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, the Court concluded that the cumulative circumstances excluded every reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence.
The Court found that the deceased’s ATM card had passed into the accused’s use within about a day of the disappearance, had been used during journeys with a witness who personally knew the accused, and was subsequently recovered concealed in the accused’s house. This was reinforced by the proved financial motive, homicidal medical evidence and discovery of the torn debt document.
The Court consequently held that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that Mohammad Shafi Magray intentionally caused the fatal blunt-force injury to Mohammad Yousuf Khanday and dishonestly removed and retained his cash and ATM card. The Court held that the circumstances established murder punishable under Section 302 RPC, besides theft under Section 379 RPC and disappearance/concealment of evidence under Section 201 RPC.
However, with respect to Section 364 RPC, the Court observed that no witness had heard any alleged promise or had seen the accused compel or deceitfully induce the deceased to accompany him. Since the allegation of luring the deceased arose from the inadmissible portion of the police confession, the Court held that the separate offence of abduction had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused of that charge.
Accordingly, Mohammad Shafi Magray stands convicted under Sections 302, 379 and 201 RPC and acquitted under Section 364 RPC. The convict has been directed to remain in judicial custody and is to be produced separately for hearing on the question of sentence, when the prosecution and the convict will be entitled to place material regarding aggravating and mitigating circumstances before the Court.
