Palghar murder accused on run for 24 years arrested from Uttar Pradesh
Representative image
NEW DELHI: Police have arrested a man absconding for the last 24 years after being accused in a case of murder in Maharashtra's Palghar district, officials said on Sunday.
The authorities captured the 50-year-old suspect, Mamu alias Chhote alias Babuon Omprakash Shrisahuni Diwakar, in Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh on April 27, according to Assistant Commissioner of Police (Crime) Madan Ballal.
On January 14, 2001, an individual named Moharram Ali Mohammad Ibrahim Ali, aged 46, suffered a fatal stomach wound from a sharp weapon in Virar area.
The Virar police filed charges against Harun Ali Mustaqin Ali Syed and Mamu under Indian Penal Code section 302 for murder, as stated by Ballal.
The incident stemmed from a disagreement over unpaid autorickshaw fares. The victim frequently used the accused persons' autorickshaws from a nearby hardware shop but allegedly failed to pay for the services.
The dispute intensified, resulting in the stabbing incident, according to Ballal.
Although Syed was arrested initially, Mamu escaped and remained hidden for 24 years.
"The accused disappeared and the case went cold for over two decades. Tracking someone after 24 years is no easy task, but we never gave up," Ballal said, adding the police started reinvestigating the case earlier this year.
"We began identifying autorickshaw drivers from that time and cross-checking with the Regional Transport Office (RTO) records.
We then conducted a technical analysis of phone numbers obtained through the accused's son and nephew. That's how we zeroed-in on his location to Paharpur, Kanpur," he said.
A dedicated police team travelled to UP and, after conducting surveillance for several days, arrested the accused near a petrol pump on Hamidpur Road with assistance from Kanpur police.
"It was a textbook case of crime detection and inter-state coordination," Ballal said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
4 hours ago
- Business Standard
Rahul Gandhi moves Jharkhand HC over non-bailable warrant in Amit Shah case
Congress leader Rahul Gandhi has approached the Jharkhand High Court to challenge a non-bailable warrant issued against him by the MP-MLA Special Court in Chaibasa, Bar and Bench reported. The warrant pertains to his remarks against Union Home Minister Amit Shah. As reported by The Hindu, this is the second such warrant issued by the Chaibasa court, which has directed Gandhi to appear before it on June 26. The court had earlier issued a non-bailable warrant on February 27 after Gandhi failed to appear and participate in the trial proceedings. Following that, Gandhi had moved the Jharkhand High Court, which stayed the execution of the first warrant. Rahul Gandhi's controversial 2018 remarks Rahul Gandhi's comments targeting the BJP during a speech at the AICC Plenary Session in New Delhi on March 18, 2018, have led to a legal faceoff. Gandhi is accused of referring to Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leaders as 'murderers' and 'liars' during his address. Gandhi had said, 'The people of this country will never accept a lying Bharatiya Janata Party leadership drunk with power because they know what the BJP is designed for.' He said, 'They will accept a man accused of murder as the President of BJP, but the people will never accept the same in the Congress Party.' Legal trouble for Rahul Gandhi Following initial hearings and witness statements, the case was transferred to the Special MP-MLA Court in Ranchi in February 2020 on the orders of the Jharkhand High Court. Subsequently, the High Court directed the matter back to the MP-MLA Court in Chaibasa. The court took cognizance of the matter in February 2022 and issued summons to Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, which his office received. In May 2022, Gandhi was granted interim protection from arrest in the case. In February 2025, the Jharkhand High Court rejected Gandhi's plea to quash the criminal defamation case. The court noted that Rahul Gandhi had stated, 'BJP leaders are liars who are drunk with power,' and that 'BJP workers will accept a person accused of murder as their President.' The court held that these statements are prima facie defamatory under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code.
Indian Express
5 hours ago
- Indian Express
SC using special powers to reverse POCSO verdict shows its moral responsibility
Written by Shashank Maheshwari When Jesus of Nazareth stood before Pontius Pilate and declared that he came into the world to bear witness to the truth, the Roman governor responded with a question that still echoes through history: 'What is truth?' Jesus did not reply. His mission, the silence suggests, was not to define abstract truth but to stand for justice — the justice envisioned in the Kingdom of God. He died for that justice. In today's constitutional context, when the Supreme Court invokes Article 142 of the Indian Constitution, the question is not merely, 'What is the law?' but something deeper and more human: 'What is justice?' Article 142 empowers the Court to deliver what the statutes sometimes cannot: 'complete justice.' It is not a routine remedy but a moral trust, invoked when our shared sense of fairness is offended — and this tension was at the centre of the Court's recent ruling in In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents (2025). This is a case where the victim was not only abandoned by her family but also neglected by the State and failed by delayed legal action. The case dates back to 2018, when a 14-year-old girl ran away to the house of the accused, who was 25 at the time. The victim's mother filed an FIR and requested the accused to bring her daughter back. The girl returned home a week later, only to go back to the accused's house a year after and begin cohabiting with him. She was completely abandoned by her family thereafter. During this period of cohabitation, a baby girl was born. After a delayed investigation, the accused was arrested under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, for committing 'aggravated penetrative sexual assault' and under Sections 376(2)(n) and 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code — for repeatedly raping the same woman and for raping a woman under 16 years of age, respectively. He was also charged with kidnapping under the Indian Penal Code. The Special Court under POCSO sentenced him to 20 years of imprisonment for sexual assault, along with five years for kidnapping. When the case reached the Calcutta High Court, it reversed the conviction, holding that both the victim and the accused were in a 'consensual romantic relationship' and that their actions constituted 'non-exploitative sexual acts.' The High Court also made objectionable remarks, directing female adolescents to control their sexual urges, along with similar directions to boys and girls — prompting the Supreme Court to initiate suo motu proceedings in the matter. The Supreme Court ultimately upheld the Special Court's judgment, reversing the High Court's decision, and emphasised that consent is irrelevant in cases involving a minor. A committee was appointed to assess the victim's socio-economic situation. Its report revealed her emotional trauma, financial exploitation, and the debt she incurred while supporting the accused. Invoking Article 142, the Court exempted the accused from further punishment to avoid inflicting additional harm on the victim. However, the Court clarified that this ruling is not to be treated as a precedent. Article 142(1) of the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to pass any order necessary to do complete justice in any pending matter. No other constitution in the world grants such broad discretionary powers to its highest court, except for Bangladesh (Article 104) and Nepal (Article 88(2)). The interpretation of 'complete justice' under Article 142 has evolved significantly — from a restrained approach in Prem Chand Garg (1963), where the Court held it could not override statutes, to a more expansive use in the 1990s. In Union Carbide (1991) and Delhi Judicial Service Association (1991), the Court used Article 142 to bridge legal and executive gaps. Later, in Vishakha (1997), it issued binding guidelines in the absence of legislation. While such interventions helped address urgent injustices, they have also drawn criticism for bypassing constitutional limits. In the recent POCSO case, the Court acted out of deep concern for the victim's dignity and future. Yet it also stepped into executive territory — prescribing care plans, financial support, and directing state-level compliance. These are responsibilities typically expected of welfare departments or social services. Even when done with noble intent, such judicial action can disrupt the delicate balance of powers that underpins constitutional governance. The Supreme Court's intervention in this case was emotionally resonant and morally grounded. But the ruling serves as a reminder that Article 142 is not a blank cheque for good intentions. It is a delicate instrument, one that must be used sparingly — precisely because it enables the judiciary to operate outside statutory bounds. Though the Court explicitly stated that this case shall not be used as precedent, that does not mean similar decisions cannot be made in the future, even without relying on this ruling. This case should also serve as a caution: even justice must pause to reflect on its limits. In a democracy governed by the rule of law, justice is not only about what is right — it is about who decides what is right, and how. The writer teaches at Jindal global law school
Indian Express
6 hours ago
- Indian Express
Trial in Delhi riots larger conspiracy case set to be delayed after judge's transfer, again
Following a recent reshuffle of 135 judges across New Delhi, the trial in the larger conspiracy case related to the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots is set to be delayed again. The case was at the stage of arguments on charges, after which the trial was likely to begin. Five of the 18 accused people had concluded their arguments over the past few months. They will now have to argue from scratch as will Special Public Prosecutors Amit Prasad and Madhukar Pandey, who had concluded their arguments from the Delhi Police Special Cell's side. 'Accordingly all the Special Public Prosecutors and counsel of accused persons are directed to furnish their schedule regarding the time frame and manner in which they will address arguments, particularly time/hours taken by them,' said Additional Sessions Judge Lalit Kumar of Karkardooma Court in his order on od. ASJ Kumar, who replaced ASJ Sameer Bajpai, stated that the arguments on charge have to be expedited and listed the case on June 6. This was the first time he had heard the case. Judge Bajpai had been transferred following an administrative order issued by the Delhi High Court last week. This is the second time the case has been delayed because of a routine transfer. In October 2023, the Court of ASJ Amitabh Rawat (who heard the cases before ASJ Bajpai) directed arguments on charges to be conducted on a day-to-day basis. Judge Rawat was transferred in mid-December 2023. The Delhi Police Special Cell is investigating the alleged conspiracy behind the riots that broke out in February 2020 and left 53 dead and over 700 injured. They have booked 18 accused under relevant provisions of the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and the Indian Penal Code. The first chargesheet was filed on November 20, 2020, and the fourth supplementary chargesheet was filed on June 8, 2023 — after a gap of two and a half years. The accused persons include Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal, Ishrat Jahan, Faizan Khan, Safoora Zargar, Asif Iqbal Tanha (all six on bail), Tahir Husain, Umar Khalid, Khalid Saifi; Sharjeel Imam; Meeran Haider; Gulfisha Fatima; Shifa-Ur-Rehman; Shadab Ahmed; Tasleem Ahmed; Saleem Malik; Mohd Saleem Khan and Athar Khan (all twelve in jail for over four years).
