-
by sayum
18 February 2026 10:41 AM
“When a conspiracy is hatched to carry out an illegal act, the physical presence of all conspirators at the crime scene is not essential. The law punishes the meeting of minds, not merely the presence of hands,” observed the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court while upholding the framing of murder charges against several accused, including a retired police officer, in a sensational homicide arising from a land dispute in Jammu.
In a significant judgment, Justice Sanjay Dhar dismissed a series of criminal revision petitions and bail applications, confirming charges under Sections 302, 307, 120-B, 447, 147, 201 IPC and other provisions. The Court held that the trial court had correctly appreciated the materials on record, including CCTV footage, Call Detail Records (CDRs), prior threats, and eyewitness accounts, to draw a prima facie case of a deliberate conspiracy culminating in murder.
“Bricks, Pipes, and Repeated Blows – These Were Not Acts of Sudden Provocation but Intent to Kill”
“Two bricks, one iron pipe, and repeated fists to the head – such cruelty goes beyond a scuffle. It is not heat of the moment, it is cold intent,” the Court remarked, rejecting the accused's plea that the killing of 24-year-old Avtar Singh amounted only to culpable homicide.
The Court held that the pattern and severity of injuries, combined with the conduct of the accused before and during the attack, showed a clear intention to cause death.
“When a victim is repeatedly struck on the head until he collapses, and blows continue even after he becomes unconscious, the intention is not to harm, but to eliminate,” the judgment recorded while upholding charges under Section 302 IPC.
The Meeting of Minds to Dispossess Became a Plan to Kill
The Court opened its judgment with a stark legal reminder:
“The law of conspiracy does not require that each conspirator be found at the scene of the crime; it is sufficient that they shared the unlawful intent and acted to achieve it.”
This principle became pivotal in the case involving a violent land-grab attempt at Chowadi, Jammu on April 30, 2024, which led to the brutal murder of Avtar Singh, son of the land’s owner, Balbir Singh. A crowd, allegedly comprising land mafia members and hired goons, stormed the disputed property while accompanied by local police.
The attack was not spontaneous. It followed months of coordination, dozens of phone calls, pre-event meetings, and a long record of threats, all traced and confirmed through forensic analysis of CDRs, witness statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC, and CCTV footage.
A Land Transaction Wrapped in Legal Disputes and Illicit Designs
The genesis of the case lay in the complex and disputed ownership of 33 marlas of land, originally sold in 2004 and transferred through a series of allegedly manipulated transactions by accused Ravinder Gupta, Parshotam Singh, and Sheikh Mehmood. Power of attorney misuse, fraudulent mutations, and disputed possession led to a web of civil litigation and repeated police complaints over the years.
Balbir Singh, who had filed civil suits and received a stay order in March 2024, was allegedly being pressured, threatened, and even publicly humiliated by graffiti on his property:
“Sardara, teri maut aayi kardi ae” ("Sardar, your death is approaching").
April 30, 2024 – A Day of Coordinated Violence
According to the prosecution, on the day of the incident:
Accused persons including Parshotam Singh, Sachin Patyal, and others arrived at the site and forcibly removed the complainant’s CCTV camera and gypsy vehicle.
Around 7:03 PM (CCTV timestamp), a full-blown assault began, during which Avtar Singh was attacked with bricks and an iron pipe.
Witnesses recalled “a coordinated and merciless attack”, where Parshotam Singh hit the deceased with full force using an iron pipe, followed by blows from Varun Kumar and others.
Even as the victim lay unconscious, the assault continued with kicks and fists.
The road was then blocked with vehicles, allegedly to delay emergency assistance.
Conspiracy Proven Through Circumstantial Evidence
The Court meticulously examined the charges under Section 120-B IPC (criminal conspiracy) and held:
“It is not always possible to prove a conspiracy by direct evidence. Circumstances such as frequent meetings, consistent call patterns, shared financial interest, and coordinated presence near the crime scene create a presumption of shared unlawful intent.”
Justice Dhar relied on Somnath Thapa v. State of Maharashtra (1996) 4 SCC 659 and Rajiv Kumar v. State of U.P. (2017) 8 SCC 791, reiterating that each conspirator need not know all details of the crime; what matters is their participation in the unlawful objective.
Accused Tried to Downplay Intent – But the Sequence of Violence Spoke Loudly
Multiple accused had argued that there was no premeditation, that no weapons were carried, and that the iron pipe was “picked up from the spot”.
Rejecting this, the Court observed: “Premeditation is evident not from the weapons used, but from the readiness to use whatever was available with deadly force. The time, the planning, and the mob's presence all point toward a deliberate decision to eliminate opposition.”
The judgment noted that: “Even if there was a single external injury, the post-mortem revealed multiple hemorrhagic contusions on the brain, and a fractured frontal bone. The fact that the deceased wore a turban may have concealed external wounds, but the internal damage was catastrophic.”
Selective Discharge Justified: No Blind Application of Conspiracy Doctrine
While affirming charges against key accused, the Court upheld the discharge of three accused – Sharat Puri, Rajat Jandyal, and Raghunandan Singh – holding that the evidence did not support their prosecution.
“Mere association with the accused or presence near the site does not establish participation in the conspiracy,” the Court said.
In particular, it held that “Sharat Puri’s role lacked continuity, motive, or direct linkage with the disputed land or prior threats.”
Similarly, “Rajat Jandyal’s presence with his father, Ravinder Gupta, did not automatically implicate him.”
Bail Denied: Serious Charges, Ongoing Threats, and No Delay in Trial
Bail was denied to all accused, including Sheikh Mehmood and Sachin Patyal, despite pleas of age, medical ailments, and lack of prior convictions.
The Court emphasized: “Gravity of the offence, stage of trial, and risk to witnesses outweigh personal grounds. Bail cannot be granted when the prosecution’s case reveals deep-rooted conspiracy and continuing danger.”
On medical grounds, the Court observed: “The petitioner is under regular treatment. Crohn’s disease and hypertension can be managed in custody. There is no evidence of deterioration or emergency.”
Strong Suspicion is Enough to Proceed – Trial Is the Stage for Proof
In its concluding observations, the Court reinforced the purpose and limits of judicial scrutiny at the charge stage: “This is not the stage to evaluate whether the prosecution will ultimately succeed. It is enough that the material raises grave suspicion about the accused’s involvement. Whether that suspicion leads to conviction or not is for the trial to decide.”
The judgment closes with a direction for expeditious trial, reflecting the judiciary’s commitment to both due process and justice in cases involving public safety and organized criminal conduct.
Date of Decision: November 4, 2025
