SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh has overturned the conviction of Kamal Jeet Singh, who was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder and sexual assault of two minor girls in 2002. This decision, delivered by Justices Atul Sreedharan and Javed Iqbal Wani, has raised questions about the integrity of the evidence presented in the original trial.
The case dates back to October 3, 2002, when two young sisters, aged six and three, went missing after returning from school. Their grandfather lodged a missing persons report, leading to a community search that ultimately uncovered their bodies in the home of Jagdesh Singh, a relative of the accused. The investigation revealed that both girls had been raped and murdered.
Kamal Jeet Singh was arrested shortly after the bodies were discovered, with police alleging that he confessed to committing the crimes. The prosecution’s case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, including forensic findings that suggested a connection between Singh and the crime scene. Notably, a steel glass found at the scene bore markings similar to those on another glass recovered from Singh’s father’s house.
In December 2016, Singh was convicted by the Principal Sessions Judge in Budgam under multiple sections of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC), including murder (Section 302) and rape (Section 376). He was sentenced to rigorous life imprisonment and fined a total of Rs 75,000.
The trial court’s judgment was based on various testimonies and forensic evidence. However, it faced scrutiny for its reliance on circumstantial evidence without direct eyewitness accounts linking Singh to the crime at the time of the girls’ disappearance.
Upon appeal, the High Court conducted a thorough review of both the evidence and the trial court’s proceedings. The justices noted several critical issues.
The court highlighted that while circumstantial evidence can be compelling, it must be substantial enough to exclude any reasonable doubt about the accused’s guilt. In this case, there were significant gaps in direct evidence linking Singh to the act at the crucial moment. The justices remarked that “there is no witness who has last seen the victims with the appellant shortly before they went missing.”
The High Court questioned the validity of Singh’s confession, suggesting that it may have been coerced or improperly obtained. The justices emphasised that confessions must be made voluntarily and without duress to be admissible in court. The judgment pointed out that “the alleged confession by the appellant to the police also disclosed an extra judicial confession,” which raised concerns about its reliability.
Although forensic evidence indicated similarities between hair samples found at the crime scene and those of Singh, this alone was insufficient to uphold a conviction without corroborating evidence directly tying him to the act.
The court also scrutinised witness testimonies for inconsistencies and potential biases. Several witnesses had familial ties to both Singh and the victims, raising concerns about impartiality.
In light of these findings, the High Court overturned Kamal Jeet Singh’s conviction due to insufficient evidence supporting his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This ruling underscores the importance of rigorous standards in criminal prosecutions and serves as a reminder of the potential for miscarriages of justice when convictions are based primarily on circumstantial evidence without robust corroboration.
