Prosecution Case Not To Be Doubted If Offending Weapon Not Found: J&K High Court Upholds Life Sentence In 31-Yr-Old Murder Case

A bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Tashi Rabstan and Justice Puneet Gupta observed,

"Even if the gun purported to have been used in the occurrence is not proved in a given case or where the weapon of offence is itself not found, it does not mean that the prosecution case is to be viewed with suspicion in all circumstances."

These observations came while hearing a criminal acquittal appeal in terms of which the appellant had been convicted by the Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu for offences under Section 302 RPC and 307 RPC(Ranbir Penal Code)

Background of the Case:

The incident dates back to February 9, 1993, when Abdul Rashid allegedly fired shots at his family members, tragically resulting in the death of his sister-in-law, Fatima Bibi, and injuring others. The initial First Information Report (FIR) was filed based on a statement by the accused's father, Sain Mohd. (PW-Sain Mohd.), who later turned hostile during the trial.

The trial court, after considering the evidence, convicted Rashid under Sections 302 (murder) and 307 (attempt to murder) of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC), sentencing him to life imprisonment and ten years of rigorous imprisonment, respectively. Abdul Rashid appealed this decision, leading to the current proceedings in the High Court.

The appellant argued that the trial court's judgment was flawed due to unreliable witness testimonies, particularly pointing out that key witnesses, including his father, had turned hostile. He also emphasized discrepancies in the investigation, especially regarding the seizure of the alleged weapon used in the crime. He further contended that the absence of the weapon should weaken the prosecution's case, as it failed to prove beyond doubt that Rashid was the perpetrator.

The prosecution, representing the state, maintained that despite the inconsistencies in witness testimonies, the overall evidence including medical and forensic reports was sufficient to establish Abdul Rashid's guilt.

They argued that the hostility of witnesses, including the father, did not negate the initial statements that led to Rashid's arrest and subsequent conviction.

Court's Observations:

The High Court, after a detailed review of the case, upheld the conviction. The court highlighted that while the hostility of key witnesses like the appellant's father introduced some discrepancies, these did not undermine the core prosecution evidence.

Pointing to the deposition of the brother of the appellant whose wife had been killed by the appellant the court said,

“There is no reason to view with suspicion the statement of this witness who lost his wife as a result of gunfire more so when there is nothing to suggest that the witness bore enmity with the accused prior to the occurrence which would have prompted the witness to depose against the accused”

It added, “The witness will not normally depose against the one except the crime-doer more so when a very close one of the person deposing has died in the occurrence. It is pertinent to point out that this witness has deposed qua that part of occurrence which related to him and his deceased wife”

In addressed the appellant's concerns regarding the non-recovery of the weapon the court underscored that the absence of the weapon does not, by itself, make the prosecution's case doubtful if other robust evidence supports the conviction.

Referencing State of Rajasthan v. Arjun Singh, AIR 2011 SC the court highlighted that the non-recovery of the weapon does not necessarily weaken the prosecution's case, as long as the circumstantial evidence and other corroborative material sufficiently establish the guilt of the accused.

In light of the circumstantial evidence on record coupled with consistent witness accounts and forensic reports the Court ultimately dismissed Abdul Rashid's appeal and upheld the life sentence imposed by the trial court.

Case Title: Abdul Rashid Vs State of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 246

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment