SRINAGAR: In a 2013 double murder case, the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Poonch, has acquitted three accused persons, Mst Hefza Bi, Adnan Ahmed and Zaheer Abbas, of charges under Sections 302, 323, 147, 148 and 149 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC), holding that the prosecution failed to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The case arose out of FIR No. 165/2013 registered at Police Station Mendhar and pertained to the deaths of two brothers, Zafar Iqbal and Ejaz Ahmed, who sustained fatal injuries during a violent confrontation in village Sarhutti, Mendhar, on November 13, 2013. The principal accused, Muhammad Razzaq, died during the pendency of the trial and proceedings against him stood abated.
Delivering the judgment after examining the evidence on record, the Court reiterated a fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that conviction can be based only on legally admissible evidence and proof beyond reasonable doubt, not on suspicion, however strong.
The Court observed that while a grave crime had undoubtedly taken place and two young lives had been lost, criminal courts are duty-bound to convict only when legal proof conclusively establishes the guilt of the accused.
A significant aspect of the judgment was the reliance placed on the testimony of independent witness Master Hakam Din (PW-10), whom the Court described as the most reliable and impartial witness in the case. The witness had reportedly been called by the deceased persons for a proposed village mediation meeting prior to the incident.
The Court noted that although the witness spoke about an assault by the deceased accused, Muhammad Razzaq, he did not support the prosecution’s allegations regarding the roles attributed to the surviving accused. His testimony, therefore, failed to corroborate the prosecution’s case against Mst Hefza Bi, Adnan Ahmed and Zaheer Abbas.
The judgment further recorded that several family members examined as prosecution witnesses appeared to have reached the spot after the assault or immediately thereafter. Consequently, their claims of having witnessed the entire occurrence could not be accepted with the degree of certainty required for sustaining a conviction.
The Court also pointed to material improvements and embellishments in the prosecution’s case. It observed that the original complaint did not contain any allegation regarding chilli powder being thrown into the eyes of the deceased. This allegation surfaced only during the investigation and trial, raising doubts about the consistency and reliability of the prosecution’s version.
While medical evidence conclusively established that the deaths were homicidal in nature, the Court held that such evidence could not identify the actual assailants. Similarly, although forensic examination detected human blood on certain recovered weapons, the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody or conclusively link those weapons to the surviving accused.
The Court further found serious deficiencies in the recovery proceedings. It observed that the alleged places of recovery were already under police control, thereby diminishing the evidentiary value of the recoveries and rendering them unreliable for the purpose of conviction.
Rejecting the prosecution’s attempt to invoke provisions relating to unlawful assembly and common intention, the Court held that there was no convincing evidence to establish any common object or common intention among the surviving accused. Mere relationship with the principal accused, the Court observed, could not be a ground for criminal liability.
Concluding the matter, the Court granted the benefit of doubt to all three surviving accused and ordered their acquittal. It also directed that those in custody be released forthwith, subject to their involvement in any other case.
The Court stated, “Criminal courts do not convict because suspicion appears morally compelling; they convict only when legal proof excludes reasonable doubt.”
The judgment brings an end to a trial that remained pending for more than 13 years and reaffirms the settled legal principle that suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of proof in criminal law. (KNC)
