Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High 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