Calcutta HC Slams CWC for 'Bad & Illegal' Declaration of Child as 'Abandoned' Despite DNA Proof; Quashes Adoption Order, Mandates Fresh Inquiry With Biological Parents' Hearing 'Constitutional Rights Cannot Be Eclipsed By Parental Authority': Allahabad High Court Slaps ₹25 Lakh Compensation On Father And State For Unlawful Confinement Of Adult Women Over Voluntary Religious Conversion Co-Operative Bank Not Obligated To Deduct TDS On Interest Paid To Non-Member Co-Operative Societies Under Section 194A(3)(v) Income Tax Act: Bombay High Court Mere Pendency Of Criminal Cases Not Sufficient Ground For Externment; It Is An Extraordinary Measure To Be Used Sparingly: Karnataka High Court Good Conduct And Strength Of Character Always Lie In The Choices One Makes: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge Of RPF Constables For Suppressing Criminal Antecedents 'Time Is Of Extreme Essence': Supreme Court Declines To Interfere With Public Procurement Tenders Over Belated Challenge And Laches "'Hanging Is Not Cruel, Torturous Or Degrading': Supreme Court Upholds Validity Of Execution By Hanging Under CrPC & BNSS" 'Backdoor Entry Cannot Be Regularized By Judicial Sympathy': Supreme Court Quashes Illegal Absorptions And Repudiates Political Machinations In Public Employment Custodial Interrogation Indispensable In Cross-Border Drug Cases Involving Commercial Quantities, Denies Pre-Arrest Bail: Punjab & Haryana High Court 'Cannot Take Advantage Of Your Own Wrong': Delhi High Court Rejects Husband's Plea For Divorce After Defying Restitution Decree Spousal Privacy Is Not Absolute: Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules Secretly Recorded Audio Evidence Admissible To Prove Adultery 'No Premium, No Risk': Supreme Court Strictly Enforces Section 64VB Insurance Act, Striking Down Retrospective Covers 'An Appeal Is Not Just A Statutory Right, It Is A Constitutional Right': Supreme Court Scraps High Court's Suo Motu Enhancement Of Life Sentence Sale With Condition To Repurchase Is Not A Mortgage: Gujarat High Court Tax Is On Use, Not On Wreckage: Kerala High Court Quashes ₹10 Lakh Demand, Rules Motor Vehicle Tax Cannot Be Levied On Accident-Wrecked Vehicles Not In Use Pecuniary Jurisdiction Objections Cannot Be Raised For The First Time In Execution Proceedings: Madras High Court 'Cannot Proceed Under SARFAESI If Dues Below ₹20 Lakhs': Punjab & Haryana High Court Protects Homeowners From Eviction, Issues Notice

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