Law of Limitation Must Be Applied Strictly; Mere Negligence or Inaction Cannot Justify Delay: Punjab & Haryana High Court Discharge from Service for Non-Disclosure of Criminal Case Held Arbitrary, Reinstatement Ordered: Calcutta High Court Maintenance for Children Restored from Date of Petition, Residence Order Limited to Pre-Divorce Period: Kerala High Court Shared Resources Must Be Preserved: P&H HC Validates Co-Owner's Right to Irrigation Access Position of Authority Misused by Lecturer to Exploit Student: Orissa High Court Rejects Bail to Lecturer in Sexual Assault Case Temporary Disconnection Of Water Supply Without Unlawful Or Dishonest Intent Does Not Constitute ‘Mischief’: Kerala High Court Quashed Criminal Proceedings Adult Sons' Student Loans Not a Valid Ground to Avoid Alimony: Calcutta High Court Ancestral Property Requires Proof of Unbroken Succession: Punjab & Haryana HC Rejects Coparcenary Claim Grant of Land for Public Purpose Does Not Divest Ownership Rights: Bombay High Court on Shri Ganpati Panchayat Sansthan's Reversionary Rights Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules Against Government Directive on Proving Experience of Deputy District Attorneys Orissa High Court Reduces Compensation in Motor Accident Case: Insurer’s Appeal Partly Allowed Service Law – Promotion Criteria Cannot Be Imposed Beyond Recruitment Rules: Supreme Court Access To Clean And Hygienic Toilets Is Not Just A Matter Of Convenience But A Fundamental Right Under Article 21: Supreme Court Promotions Under Merit-Cum-Seniority Quota Cannot Be Based Solely on Comparative Merit: Supreme Court Reliefs Must Be Both Available and Enforceable at the Time of Filing to Attract Order II Rule 2 Bar: 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

Similar News