The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has overturned the conviction of four individuals in the 2012 Awantipora murder case, citing inadmissibility of confessions, procedural lapses, and weak circumstantial evidence.

The Court found that the prosecution's case was riddled with inconsistencies, including an FIR registered before the discovery of the victim's body and confessions obtained under duress.

The Division Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Rajesh Sekhri expressed surprise that the FIR was filed without any tangible evidence and before the body was recovered.

The Court noted that the identity of the informant, who provided the tip-off leading to the FIR, was never disclosed or examined, raising substantial doubts about the credibility of the case. "The interesting aspect of this witness statement is that in a case where there are no eyewitnesses, the source informant categorically states that the deceased was murdered, and that too by A1 and the other co-accused persons, and on that basis, the FIR is registered against the appellants who are named in the FIR, even before the recovery of the body or the postmortem report. It ought to have spurred the police to investigate as to how, the source informant had this information that the son of A1 was murdered even before the recovery of the body and whether the source informant was an eyewitness to the incident, and if not, was the source informant the actual killer, and that was why he knew exactly what happened to the deceased when none other in the entire village had an inkling? However, the police do not pose these questions to itself and so, does not even investigate in that direction," the Bench said.

Case Background

The case involved a murder allegedly committed over a property dispute. The FIR was registered under Sections 302 (murder), 120-B (criminal conspiracy), and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) of the IPC against several accused even before the victim's body was found.

During the investigation, police interrogated the victim’s father (A1), who allegedly confessed and led them to the body. The stepbrother (A2) was said to have disclosed the location of a wooden staff and axe used in the crime, while the victim’s stepmother (A4) was accused of helping dispose of the body.

A Trial Court convicted A1, A2, and another relative (A3) under Sections 302, 120-B, and 201 IPC, while A4 was convicted under Section 201 IPC. However, five other accused were acquitted.

Court's Observations

The prosecution had claimed that the village numberdar reported the murder, but his testimony revealed that he had merely heard a rumor and sent a chowkidar to verify it. The Court held that this discrepancy cast serious doubt on the initial information, suggesting either an unidentified eyewitness who refused to come forward or an attempt to frame others.

The Bench further found that the primary evidence against the accused was their alleged confessions. However, several witnesses testified that police detained family members of the accused and coerced them into confessing. The Court ruled that the confessions lacked informed consent and were thus inadmissible. It emphasized that for a confession to be valid, the accused must understand its consequences and voluntarily choose to give it.

Regarding the discovery of the victim’s body, the Court noted that the location, a dry well in an orchard, was already known to villagers before the accused allegedly disclosed it, making the police's claim of discovery doubtful. Additionally, the court found that the alleged murder weapon, a danda (wooden staff), was not linked to the crime, as the post-mortem report did not indicate any injuries caused by it.

The Court also questioned the forensic evidence, stating that blood found on artefacts seized from the accused’s house could not be conclusively linked to the crime, as no blood samples of the accused were taken for comparison. It held that when alternative possibilities are not ruled out, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.

"In a case based upon circumstantial evidence, it was necessary for the police to have taken the blood samples of the accused persons also for the purpose of eliminating the possibility of the blood found on the artefacts as that being of the accused itself as the objects were seized allegedly from the house of the accused persons. Where the witness says that the blood group AB is common, the same could have been of the accused also, especially A1 who is the father of the victim. Detection is by deduction. Where there is no deduction of other probabilities, the benefit must go to the accused," the Court said.

Consequently, the Court reversed the convictions and ordered the immediate release of all four accused. "The impugned judgement of conviction and sentence is set aside. The bail bonds of appellants who are on bail stand discharged. Appellants still undergoing sentence shall be released forthwith," the Bench ordered.

Cause Title: Mohammad Akram Wani & Ors. v. State [CrlA (D) No. 4/2021 c/w Crl Ref.(L) No. 1/2021 CrlA (D) No. 7/2021]

Appearance:-

Appellant: Senior Advocate S.T. Hussain, Advocates Nida Nazir, Rizwan-ul-Zaman, Shafi Bhat

Respondent: Sr. AAG Mohsin Qadri, Advocate Taha Khalil

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Justice Atul SreedharanJustice Rajesh SekhriJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court

Sukriti Mishra

    Sukriti Mishra was a Legal Correspondent at Verdictum. She covered the Supreme Court. She completed her graduation with BA. LL.B (Hons.) from The ICFAI University, Dehradun. Sukriti started covering courts in March 2022. She had previously worked with another legal news portal, where she covered the Delhi High Court and Trial Courts.