No Work No Pay: Delhi High Court Denies Back Wages To Reinstated Army Officer State Cannot Use 'Delay & Laches' To Evade Compensation For Land Taken Without Authority Of Law: Calcutta High Court Supreme Court Slams High Court For Dismissing Jail Appeal Solely On 3157-Day Delay; Orders Release Of Life Convict After 22 Years In Jail 138 NI Act | Failure To Produce Income Tax Returns Not Fatal To Cheque Bounce Case If Debt Is Established: Delhi High Court Certified Copies Of Public Records Not In Party's 'Power Or Possession' Until Actually Obtained; Leave Not Required For Rebuttal Documents: AP High Court For Conviction Under Section 34 IPC, Prosecution Must Establish Prior Meeting Of Minds & Pre-Arranged Plan: Allahabad High Court Merciless Beating With Blunt Side Of Deadly Weapons To Spread Terror Constitutes Murder, Not Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court CIT Can’t Invoke Revisionary Jurisdiction Merely Because AO’s Enquiry Was ‘Inadequate’ If View Is Plausible: Bombay High Court Mere Presence At Crime Scene Without Proof Of Prior Concert Insufficient To Invoke Section 34 IPC For Murder: Supreme Court Courts Cannot Be Used As Tools For Coercion: Bombay HC Dismisses Application To Implead Developer Without Contractual Nexus, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Cost Specific Performance Cannot Be Granted For Contingent Contracts Dependent On Third-Party Conveyance: Madras High Court Unlawful Subletting Is A ‘Continuing Wrong’, Fresh Limitation Period Runs As Long As Breach Continues: Bombay High Court Courts Must Specify Payment Timeline In Specific Performance Decrees; Order XX Rule 12A CPC Is Mandatory: Supreme Court Specific Performance Decree Does Not Automatically Rescind Due To Delay; Courts Can Extend Time For Deposit: Supreme Court Madras High Court Quashes Forgery Case Against Mahindra World City After Victims Accept Alternate Land In Settlement Motor Accident Claims: 13-Day FIR Delay Not Fatal; 80% Physical Disability Can Be Treated As 100% Functional Disability: Punjab & Haryana HC Murderer Cannot Inherit Property From Victim Through Wills; Section 25 Hindu Succession Act Bar Applies To Testamentary Succession: Supreme Court Courts Must Pierce Veil Of Clever Drafting To Reject Suits Barred By Benami Law; 2016 Amendments Are Retrospective: Supreme Court Indian Railways Is A Consumer, Not A Deemed Distribution Licensee; Must Pay Cross-Subsidy Surcharge For Open Access: Supreme Court Technical Rules Of Evidence Act Do Not Apply To Departmental Enquiries: Supreme Court Public Employment Cannot Be Converted Into An Instrument Of Fraud; Police Personnel Using Dual Identity Strikes At Root Of Service: Supreme Court

JK High Court Upheld Acquittal BSF Constable: Inconsistencies in Eyewitness Testimonies Lead to Doubt

18 September 2024 10:21 AM

By: sayum


High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh delivered a significant ruling in the case "State of J&K vs. A.M. Sangma." The court dismissed the state's appeal against the acquittal of A.M. Sangma, a BSF constable, accused of murdering his superior officers. The court held that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, upholding the trial court's decision.

The case originated from an incident on August 10, 2002, when A.M. Sangma, a constable with the 127 Battalion BSF, allegedly fired indiscriminately at his superiors on platform no. 1 of Jammu Railway Station. This resulted in the death of Assistant Commandant Tulsi Dass, Head Constable Chitranjan Swain, and Constable P. Hathi Naik, with another constable, R. Romesh, sustaining serious injuries. Animosity between Sangma and the deceased Assistant Commandant over a disciplinary penalty and denial of leave was cited as the motive for the shooting. The trial court acquitted Sangma on March 18, 2009, citing insufficient evidence.

The key legal question was whether the prosecution provided sufficient credible evidence to convict Sangma under Section 302 of the Ranbir Penal Code. The prosecution relied primarily on eyewitness testimonies and circumstantial evidence, including the seizure of the weapon from the accused. However, the High Court scrutinized the consistency and reliability of these testimonies.

Witness Testimonies: The court observed that most of the prosecution witnesses were either hostile or provided hearsay evidence. Only PW 11 (Sudip Mukhopadhyay) and PW 12 (Abdul Rashid) claimed to have witnessed the occurrence. However, their testimonies were inconsistent. PW 11 contradicted himself, stating first that he saw Sangma firing and then only seeing him being caught by others. PW 12's account was contradicted by the site plan and the number of shots fired.

Site Plan and Eyewitness Inconsistencies: The site plan indicated the accused fired from near the railway track facing the exit point, while PW 12 stated the firing occurred near the exit point, close to the accused. This contradiction led the court to question the reliability of PW 12’s testimony.

Delay in FIR Forwarding: The FIR was lodged on August 10, 2002, but was only sent to the Magistrate on August 12, 2002, with no explanation for this delay, casting doubt on the transparency of the investigation.

Seizure of Weapon: The court found the evidence regarding the seizure of the weapon from Sangma's possession to be inconclusive, with discrepancies in the testimonies of the witnesses who allegedly handed over the weapon to the police.

The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt due to inconsistent witness testimonies, contradictions with the site plan, and procedural lapses. Thus, the appeal was dismissed, and the trial court’s acquittal of A.M. Sangma was upheld.

Date of Decision: September 11, 2024

State of J&K vs. A.M. Sangma

Latest Legal News