Unexplained Delay In Recording Eye-Witness Statements Renders Testimony Suspect: J&K&L High Court Acquits Three In Murder Case

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that the conviction of co-accused cannot be sustained merely on account of their association with the principal accused, especially when the testimony of alleged eye-witnesses suffers from unexplained delay in recording, material contradictions with medical evidence, and the witnesses themselves admit that the principal witness was not present at the scene.The Court thus acquitted three out of four accused while upholding the life sentence of the principal accused on the basis of a complete chain of circumstantial evidence.The Court was hearing an appeal filed by four accused, Deepak Singh, Shammi Singh, Manjeet Singh, and Charanjeet Singh challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, for offences under Sections 302, 452, 34 RPC and Sections 4/25 and 30 of the Arms Act and sentencing them to imprisonment for life.The Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar observed, “In the absence of any cogent and convincing evidence demonstrating the active participation of the co-accused in the commission of the offence, it would be unsafe to hold them guilty merely on account of their association with the principal accused. The unexplained delay in recording statements of eye-witnesses, coupled with material inconsistencies between ocular and medical evidence, renders the prosecution case against the co-accused doubtful.”The prosecution case rested primarily on the testimonies of three alleged eye-witnesses PW-1 Anil Sharma (brother of the deceased), PW-2 Kishore Sharma, and PW-3 Vijay Kumar. They claimed that on July 8, 2014, the four accused entered the shop of the deceased armed with a gun and sharp-edged weapons (tokas), and Deepak Singh fired a gunshot causing fatal injuries. The deceased was declared brought dead at the hospital.However, the witnesses admitted that their statements under Section 164 CrPC were recorded only after a delay of nearly one month on August 5, 2014 and August 13, 2014, with no explanation for the delay. PW-1 Anil Sharma categorically denied having lodged the written report that formed the basis of the FIR. The medical evidence (PW-16 Dr. Sanjeev Bhardwaj) revealed only a single gunshot injury (entry and exit) with no injuries attributable to any sharp or blunt weapon, contradicting the claim that the co-accused had inflicted injuries with tokas. The investigating officer (PW-17) admitted several lapses, including failure to seize the blood-stained clothes of the witnesses and the vehicle used to transport the deceased.Court's Observation:Adjudicating the appeal the Court found that the testimonies of the three alleged eye-witnesses did not inspire confidence as PW-1 disowned the written complaint forming the foundation of the FIR. The court noted that all three witnesses admitted that PW-1 was not present at the scene when the incident occurred, yet they projected themselves as eye-witnesses to the assault by all four accused. Scrutinising the evidence on record the court found that the medical evidence showed only a single gunshot injury, contradicting the claim of multiple injuries from sharp weapons. The unexplained delay of nearly one month in recording their statements raised a strong possibility of deliberation and embellishment, was also taken note of. Citing Shahid Khan vs. State of Rajasthan, (2016) 3 SCC Criminal 211, the Court reiterated that an unexplained delay in recording statements of eyewitnesses creates serious doubt about their presence at the scene and the authenticity of their version, ultimately leading to the setting aside of the conviction.Further, the Court held that the inconsistencies between ocular and medical evidence, coupled with the doubtful presence of witnesses and lack of corroboration, rendered the testimony of PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3 unreliable insofar as the co-accused were concerned. The court remarked, “… the doubtful presence of the witnesses at the scene, inconsistencies between ocular and medical evidence, unexplained delays, lack of 2026:JKLHC-JMU:1090-DB corroboration, makes the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3, therefore, does not meet the threshold of credibility required to sustain a conviction”However, the Court found that the case against appellant Deepak Singh stood on a different footing as the circumstantial evidence against him formed a consistent and coherent chain. The Court held that this chain of circumstances was complete, consistent, and incompatible with any hypothesis other than his guilt.In consonance with the above findings the Court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the conviction and sentence of appellants Shammi Singh, Manjeet Singh, and Charanjeet Singh, and acquitted them. The appeal of appellant Deepak Singh was dismissed, and his conviction under Section 302 RPC was upheld. The co-accused were directed to be set at liberty forthwith if not involved in any other...

Unexplained Delay In Recording Eye-Witness Statements Renders Testimony Suspect: J&K&L High Court Acquits Three In Murder Case

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags