Witnesses Informed By Police About Accused Before Statements Recorded: J&K&L High Court Acquits Murder Convicts

Holding that a prosecution case becomes seriously suspect when witnesses are already informed by the police about the identity of the alleged offenders before their statements are recorded, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has set aside the conviction of two persons sentenced to life imprisonment for murder.The Court observed that such circumstances indicate that the investigation proceeded with a predetermined mindset and substantially impair the credibility and evidentiary worth of the prosecution's evidence.The Court was hearing two criminal appeals filed against a judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Kulgam, in a case arising out of FIR No. 343/2013 registered for offences under Sections 302/34 and 120-B RPC. The trial Court had convicted Ali Mohammad Dar and Muzamilla for the murder of Abdul Rashid Dar and sentenced them to imprisonment for life. The matter also came before the High Court through a reference for confirmation of sentence.A Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar and Justice Sanjay Parihar observed, “.... Such admissions clearly indicate that the investigation had proceeded with a predetermined mindset and that the witnesses were influenced by the version supplied by the police. This circumstance seriously impairs the credibility and evidentiary worth of the prosecution evidence.”Background:The case originated from the discovery of Abdul Rashid Dar's body hanging from a tree in an orchard in 2013. During inquest proceedings, the police formed an opinion that the death was not a case of suicide and registered a murder case.According to the prosecution, investigation revealed that the deceased's wife, Muzamilla, was allegedly maintaining an illicit relationship with co-accused Ali Mohammad Dar. The prosecution alleged that both had conspired to eliminate the deceased so that they could continue their relationship unhindered. It was claimed that sedative tablets were administered to the deceased, after which he was killed and his body was later suspended from a tree to create an appearance of suicide.The prosecution relied heavily on disclosure statements allegedly made by the accused in police custody, recoveries purportedly effected pursuant to those statements, medical evidence, and call detail records said to establish communication between the accused persons. On the basis of this material, the trial Court convicted both accused and imposed life imprisonment. Aggrieved by their conviction, the accused approached the High Court.Court's Observations:The High Court examined the evidence and found that the prosecution case rested substantially on disclosure statements allegedly made by the accused while in police custody. The Court observed that the law relating to admissibility of such statements is well settled and that only that limited portion of information which distinctly leads to discovery of a fact can be admitted in evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.The Bench noted that the prosecution sought to rely not merely on recoveries but on detailed custodial narratives relating to the alleged illicit relationship, conspiracy, administration of sedatives and the manner in which the offence was allegedly committed. The Court held that these portions were clearly confessional in nature and barred by Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act.The Court further found that even the alleged recoveries carried little evidentiary value. The scarf, glass and medicine strip were recovered from the house and not from any concealed location known exclusively to the accused. No forensic examination was conducted on the glass allegedly used for administering sedatives. The prosecution also failed to establish any exclusive knowledge linking the accused to the recovered articles, the Court opined. The Bench also found significant deficiencies in the circumstantial evidence. Although the prosecution attempted to establish motive through allegations of an illicit relationship, the Court held that the evidence produced in support of such allegations was vague and inconclusive. Witnesses merely made generalized assertions without producing convincing material to substantiate the allegation, the court said. The Court observed that one of the prosecution witnesses himself admitted that Ali Mohammad Dar used to visit the house because Muzamilla was unwell and required injections. According to the Court, this provided a plausible explanation for his visits and weakened the prosecution's theory that the visits necessarily indicated an illicit relationship.The Bench further noted that the prosecution had failed to establish a “last seen” circumstance. Significantly, the court pointed that the son and daughter of the deceased were present in the house on the relevant night, yet none of the witnesses stated that they had seen Ali Mohammad Dar entering the house. The Court held that the absence of such evidence struck at the root of the prosecution case.The...

Witnesses Informed By Police About Accused Before Statements Recorded: J&K&L High Court Acquits Murder Convicts

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Witnesses Informed By Police About Accused Before Statements Recorded: J&K&L High Court Acquits Murder Convicts

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers