Absence Of Motive Becomes Less Significant When Prosecution Relies On Strong Eyewitness Account: J&K High Court

A bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar added that it however does not mean that proof of motive even in a case which rests on an eyewitness account does not lend strength to the prosecution case as proof of motive in such a situation certainly helps the prosecution and supports the eyewitnesses.

Justice Dhar made these observations while hearing a criminal conviction appeal revolved around an incident in 1995 when Gulzar Ahmed was allegedly attacked by the appellants with a sharp-edged weapon called a 'Toka' near the Power House in Basohli. Ahmed sustained severe injuries and was found in a critical state by the police, who promptly transported him to the hospital. The appellants were convicted based on the testimony of an eyewitness, Maqsood Ahmed, and medical evidence presented during the trial.

Assailing the conviction the appellants contended that the trial court had not thoroughly evaluated the evidence, arguing that Ahmed's injuries could have resulted from an accidental fall, especially given his intoxicated state at the time. They also highlighted the improbability of the eyewitness's ability to accurately identify the assailants from a significant distance at night.

Meticulously examining the prosecution's evidence the bench noted several critical shortcomings key among these was the credibility of Maqsood Ahmed, described as a "chance witness" who had coincidentally been at the scene.

Spotlighting the caution and close scrutiny that need to be maintained while dealing with a chance witness Justice Dhar observed,

“The conduct of a chance witness subsequent to the incident has also to be taken into consideration, particularly as to whether he has informed any one else in the vicinity about the incident”.

Justice Dhar found Ahmed's testimony unreliable due to his inconsistent behaviour such as not immediately aiding his injured relative and not reporting the incident promptly to the authorities or anyone else.

“All the aforesaid factors have not been taken into consideration by the learned trial Court, while appreciating the statement of PW Maqsood Ahmed, as a result of which, the learned trial Court has drawn its conclusions on the basis of highly unreliable testimony of PW Maqsood Ahmed”, the court said.

Further, the court observed that the investigating officer, who had recorded Gulzar Ahmed's statement implicating the appellants, failed to testify and added,

“It was incumbent upon the SHO to step into the witness box and prove the statement of the injured recorded by him, particularly because during the trial of the case, the injured had passed away. Because the SHO ,who is stated to have recorded the statement of the injured, did not appear as a witness for prosecution, this circumstance which had assumed significance due to death of the injured could not be established”.

Additionally, the court further stated that the prosecution could not establish a clear motive for the alleged attack, nor was there sufficient evidence of prior litigation between the parties that might have led to the assault.

Justice Dhar emphasized that while motive is not always essential when eyewitness testimony is compelling, in this instance, the sole eyewitness's account was fraught with inconsistencies and improbabilities.

In light of these facts and circumstances, the Court found it unsafe to uphold the conviction based on such testimony. The appellants were thus acquitted, and their bail and surety bonds were discharged.

Case Title: Bhajan Singh Vs State Of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 129

Mr. Adarsh Sharma Advocate appeared for the petitioner, the Sate was represented by Mr. Dewakar Sharma Dy.AG

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment