'In Case Based On Circumstantial Evidence, Motive Assumes Importance': Jammu & Kashmir HC Upholds Acquittal In 15 Yrs Old Murder Case

It also emphasized that in case based on circumstantial evidence motive assumes great importance.

"In absence of a motive, it would be difficult to complete the chain of events in order to prove the guilt of accused."

Court noted that in this case father of deceased had categorically stated that accused persons had no enmity with the deceased. Enmity, if any, was attributed to the absconding accused persons who are yet to face the trial.

The bench was hearing a criminal acquittal appeal which stemmed from an incident in Udhampur on 30th December 2008. The prosecution charged ten individuals under Sections 302, 120-B, 212 RPC, and the Arms Act. The trial court acquitted five of the accused, prompting the State to appeal the verdict.

The prosecution assailed the acquittal of the respondents on multiple witnesses and the lack of appreciation of these prosecution witnesses by the trial court, but the Court found that their testimonies did not substantiate the case, leading to a closer examination of the circumstantial evidence.

Delving into the concept of circumstantial evidence, Justice Javed Iqbal Wani for the bench emphasised that for a conviction, the chain of interdependent circumstances must be viewed as a cohesive whole rather than in isolation. The Court stressed that only when an unbreakable chain is established can the guilt of the accused be proven beyond any reasonable doubt.

Analysing the several circumstances pressed into service by the prosecution to buttress their case the court raised doubts about the credibility of the recovery of weapons based on the accused's confession statements. Witnesses' testimonies did not corroborate these claims, and discrepancies in the process of recovery were noted.

Rejecting the argument of prosecution that recovery of the weapons of offences on the basis of the confession made to the police officer attracted immunity under section 27 of the Evidence Act 1872, the bench observed,

“…PWs Adnan Bashir and Jasbir Singh SI who were witnesses of disclosure statement with respect to all the accused persons have stated in their respective statements that none of the accused persons made disclosure in their presence and that none of the accused persons confessed to have concealed the weapons of offence. Even the independent witness to the disclosure statements and recoveries have turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case”.

With regard to fingerprints and identification parades the prosecution had relied on fingerprints lifted from weapons allegedly recovered at the instance of the accused. However, the Court observed that the fingerprints from some weapons were submerged and unfit for examination, raising questions about the veracity of the evidence. The identification parades were also subject to scrutiny, as witnesses admitted to being influenced by the police during the process, the bench underscored.

Dealing with the prosecution’s attempt to establish a conspiracy through cell phone call details, the Court found no concrete evidence linking the accused to any illegal activities. The lack of clear communication between the accused further weakened this aspect of the prosecution's case.

“..Thus there being no evidence of conspiracy, more so, when the prosecution failed to even show as to which cell phones being used by the accused persons before and after occurrence and whether there was any contact between the accused persons inter-se it could safely be said that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt”, Justice Wani reasoned.

Accordingly, the trial court's decision to acquit the accused was upheld.

Case Title: State Of J&K Vs Shailender Singh

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 205

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment