Manufacturing Unit Must Be in Uttar Pradesh to Bid for Child Nutrition Tender — Delhi High Court Upholds NAFED's Geographical Eligibility Condition for Rs. 2,768 Crore ICDS Supply Contract 800-Strong Mob Unleashed Against ED Officials During PDS Scam Search — Calcutta High Court Refuses Bail, Cites Witness Intimidation Threat Section 29A Cannot Reach Into a Special Statutory Code: Bombay High Court Rules Time Limit Provisions of Arbitration Act Inapplicable to Highway Land Acquisition Arbitrations Mala Fides Are ‘Easily Alleged but Hardly Proved’: Andhra Pradesh High Court Refuses to Quash Income Tax Summons” Child Witness Testimony Can Sustain Conviction Without Corroboration If Reliable: Allahabad High Court FD Deposited With Bank Does Not Make Corporate a 'Commercial Purpose' User — But Fraud Allegations Can't Be Tried in Consumer Forum: Supreme Court Movie Flopped, But That's Not Cheating — Supreme Court Quashes Section 420 IPC Against Film Producer Who Borrowed Investment Money on Profit-Sharing Promise No Rape Where Consent Is Conscious and Marriage Impossible: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Man Accused of False Promise Charge Sheet Served On Last Day of Service, Punishment After Retirement: Supreme Court Upholds Pay Reduction of Bank Officer Post-Superannuation IAS Officer Convicted for Contempt Gets Fine Waived on Apology, But Gets Stricture: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashing Cannot Become a Mini-Trial: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Halt Rape Case Linked to ‘Exorcism’ and Blackmail NDPS | Prosecution Cannot Pin Cannabis Cultivation on One Co-Owner Without Proof: Bombay HC Acquits Seventeen Years of Waiting is Itself Punishment: Calcutta High Court Balances Conviction with Constitutional Compassion Bigger Truck, Damaged Motorcycle — But Insurance Company Cannot Apportion Negligence Without Examining the Driver: Gujarat High Court Tenant Cannot Bequeath Tenancy Rights by Will Under HP Tenancy Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court A Registered Sale Deed And Mutation Cannot Override Fundamental Principle That Vendor Cannot Convey Better Title Than He Possesses: Punjab & Haryana High Court Non-Recovery of the Dead Body Is Not an Absolute Requirement for Conviction: Delhi High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Supplemental Agreement Signed Under Threat Of Contract Termination Cannot Negate Contractor's Claim For Extra Expenditure: Kerala High Court No Bail Without Hearing the Victim: Kerala High Court Declares Orders Passed in Violation of SC/ST Act ‘Non-Est’ False Promise, Pregnancy, and Denial of Paternity: Telangana High Court Grants Bail Amid Pending DNA Evidence

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