Contradictory Witness Accounts And Unreliable Night Identification: J&K HC Upholds Acquittal Of 3 Accused In SPO Killing

The prosecution alleged that, during the night of 17–18 April 1999, a group of militants abducted SPO Mohammad Farooq from his home and killed him near the river Ujh.

After investigation, charges were framed against the three respondents for offences under Sections 302, 148, 149, 124-A, 458, 364 and 114 RPC, and Sections 7/27 of the Arms Act.

The Sessions Court acquitted them on 30 October 2010. The State appealed, contending that the evidence sufficiently connected the respondents to the offences.

The appeal was considered after two other accused had died and two had been proceeded against under Section 512 CrPC.

The prosecution was required to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt; suspicion, even if grave, cannot substitute for legal proof.

In an appeal against acquittal, the presumption of innocence is reinforced by the acquittal, and appellate interference is warranted where the trial court’s view is perverse or impossible. Where two reasonable views are available, the view favouring the accused must prevail; the appellate court cannot reverse an acquittal merely because another view is possible.

The Court relied on Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415; Murlidhar @ Gidda v. State of Karnataka, (2014) 5 SCC 730; and Sampat Babso Kale v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 4 SCC 739.

The charges before the trial court included offences under the RPC and Sections 7/27 of the Arms Act.

The Court found that the alleged eyewitnesses materially contradicted one another and their earlier statements about the assailants’ identities, numbers, use of masks, and the circumstances in which they could have identified them.

Several witnesses were declared hostile, and the presence of some witnesses at the scene was doubtful; the accounts of Javed Iqbal and Nasreen Begum were also undermined by evidence that they lived some 10–15 kilometres away.

The claimed sources of light—a torch and an earthen lamp—were not seized, and the prosecution did not examine nearby independent residents.

The Court therefore held that the evidence did not reliably establish the respondents’ identity or participation, and that the trial court’s assessment was a reasonable view, not one warranting appellate intervention.

It dismissed the State’s appeal as lacking merit and directed that the trial court record be returned with a copy of the judgment.