Acquittal Upheld Where Prosecution Fails to Establish Ballistic Nexus and Provides Inconsistent Ocular Testimony

The appellant (State) challenged the judgment of acquittal passed by the Pr. Sessions Judge, Bhaderwah, in favor of five respondents charged under Sections 302, 307, 109, and 149 of the RPC and Section 7/25 of the Arms Act

The prosecution alleged that on 09.11.2003, the respondents, who were Special Task Force (SPO) and Village Defence Committee (VDC) members, fired upon and killed Mst. Shahina Begum and Abdul Gani (wife and son of the complainant, PW-1) due to a long-standing dispute over a water mill (gharat)

While weapons were recovered from the respondents, the defense argued the deaths occurred during cross-firing between militants and security forces

The Trial Court acquitted the respondents, prompting this appeal

1. Whether the Trial Court failed to properly appreciate the ocular and medical evidence establishing the complicity of the respondents

2. Whether the absence of ballistic evidence and recovery of empty cartridges at the scene of the occurrence was fatal to the prosecution’s case

3. Whether the findings of the Trial Court were perverse or unreasonable, necessitating interference in an appeal against acquittal

The Court primarily applied the standards of proof for murder and attempted murder under the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC).

It reinforced the principle that in an appeal against acquittal, the presumption of innocence is strengthened

The Court relied on the precedents of Harijana Thirupala v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. (AIR 2002 SC 2821) and Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka ((2007) 4 SCC 415), which established that if two views are reasonably possible on the evidence, the appellate court must adopt the view favorable to the accused and should not interfere unless the trial court's findings are manifestly perverse

The Court found that the prosecution's ocular evidence was inconsistent and unreliable.

PW-1 (complainant) admitted he was not an eye-witness to the firing

PW-10 and PW-11 (the injured witness) attributed the fatal shots to Shoukat Ali and Liyakat Ali—individuals who were never charge-sheeted or brought to trial—thereby exonerating the current respondents

The Court noted significant discrepancies regarding the volume of fire, with witness estimates ranging from a few shots to 500 rounds

Medical evidence contradicted the "indiscriminate firing" theory, as each victim sustained only a single bullet injury, which the doctor suggested originated from a distance of over one kilometer

Furthermore, the prosecution failed to establish a nexus between the respondents' weapons and the injuries because no empty cartridges were recovered and the ballistic expert was never examined

The Court also highlighted the presence of a plausible alternative version of militant cross-firing, supported by prosecution witness PW-9, who was not declared hostile

It held that the Trial Court’s appreciation of evidence was neither perverse nor illegal, and the existence of a reasonable doubt mandated the acquittal of the accused

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of acquittal