SRINAGAR: Holding that the prosecution had proved the charge of murder beyond reasonable doubt, the Court of the Principal Sessions Judge, Anantnag has convicted Showkat Ahmad Bhat for murdering gas tanker driver Naseeb Singh after a roadside altercation on the Jammu-Srinagar National Highway in January 2019. Delivering the judgment on June 23, Principal Sessions Judge Tahir Khurshid Raina held that the accused intentionally stopped the tanker, dragged the driver out of the vehicle and repeatedly assaulted him with an iron rod, causing injuries that ultimately resulted in his death. The court convicted the accused under Sections 302 and 427 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC), observing that the evidence formed “a complete and unbroken chain” pointing unmistakably towards his guilt.
The 68-page judgment was reserved on June 3, 2026 and pronounced on June 23, 2026 in FIR No. 09/2019 registered at Police Station Qazigund. The prosecution was conducted by the Public Prosecutor, while the accused was represented by advocate Showkat Hussain Dar.
Background of the Case
According to the prosecution, the case initially appeared to be a road accident. On the evening of January 17, 2019, police received information that a gas tanker travelling from Jammu towards Srinagar had gone out of control near Glass Tower on the National Highway and plunged into a deep gorge. The driver, Naseeb Singh of Kathua district, sustained critical injuries and was shifted from Qazigund Hospital to District Hospital Anantnag before being referred to Srinagar, where he succumbed to his injuries. An FIR was initially registered under Sections 279, 337 and 427 RPC treating the incident as a road traffic accident.
However, the investigation took a dramatic turn when Mehraj Ahmad Naik approached police claiming to have witnessed the incident. He alleged that the driver of a 12-wheel truck had deliberately stopped the tanker, dragged its driver out, assaulted him with an iron rod and prevented him from securing the vehicle, causing the unmanned tanker to roll into the gorge. Following this statement, police deleted the accident-related offences and invoked Section 302 RPC for murder.
Investigation
During reinvestigation, police conducted a fresh post-mortem, recorded witness statements under Section 164 CrPC, traced the truck involved in the incident and identified Showkat Ahmad Bhat as its driver. The prosecution alleged that the accused confessed during interrogation that he attacked the tanker driver in revenge after the tanker had earlier damaged his truck near Shaitan Nallah. Police also recovered an iron rod allegedly used in the assault and relied upon call detail records, tower location and a Test Identification Parade to link the accused with the crime.
Trial
The charge-sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate in March 2019, following which the case was committed to the Sessions Court. Charges under Sections 302 and 427 RPC were framed on September 30, 2019, to which the accused pleaded not guilty.
During the lengthy trial, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses, including the investigating officers, the eyewitness, forensic experts and two doctors who had conducted the post-mortem examination. The accused was examined under Section 342 CrPC and later entered the witness box in his defence after obtaining permission under Section 342-A/315 CrPC.
Prosecution’s Arguments
The prosecution argued that although the case was initially registered as a road accident, the subsequent investigation established that it was in fact a deliberate act of murder. It relied primarily on the testimony of eyewitness Mehraj Ahmad Naik and his statement recorded before the Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC, which it said consistently described the assault on the deceased. The prosecution further relied on the Test Identification Parade, recovery of the iron rod allegedly used in the crime, medical evidence establishing homicidal injuries, seizure of the truck driven by the accused, and call detail records placing him near the scene of the occurrence. It also referred to the accused’s disclosure statement during investigation, in which he allegedly admitted attacking the deceased after becoming enraged when the gas tanker had earlier damaged his truck near Shaitan Nallah. Taken together, the prosecution contended, the evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had intentionally murdered Naseeb Singh.
Defence’s Arguments
The defence, on the other hand, contended that the prosecution case was riddled with inconsistencies and investigative lapses. It argued that the incident had originally been treated as a road accident and was subsequently converted into a murder case as an afterthought. The defence submitted that the prosecution’s principal eyewitness had turned hostile during trial and could not be relied upon. It further challenged the validity of the Test Identification Parade, alleging procedural irregularities, and questioned the medical evidence on the ground that the final opinion regarding the cause of death had been rendered nearly six years after the post-mortem examination. The defence also argued that the investigation suffered from serious defects, that no credible motive had been established, and that the accused had been falsely implicated because of what it described as a “personal grudge.” On these grounds, it urged the court to acquit the accused.
Court’s Findings
Rejecting the defence arguments one by one, the Sessions Court held that the prosecution had successfully explained why the case was initially treated as an accident and later converted into a murder investigation after an eyewitness surfaced.
The court observed that even though the eyewitness had partly resiled from his earlier version during trial, he admitted significant aspects of the occurrence and affirmed the correctness of his voluntary statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC. Relying on settled legal principles, the court held that the testimony of a hostile witness need not be discarded in its entirety and can be relied upon to the extent it is corroborated by independent evidence.
The court also rejected the challenge to the delayed medical opinion, holding that the doctors who actually conducted the post-mortem appeared before the court and fully explained the basis of their conclusions.
It further observed: “Merely because the final opinion was formally recorded at a later stage does not render the medical evidence inadmissible or unreliable.”
On alleged investigative lapses, the court said defective investigation alone could not justify acquittal where reliable evidence otherwise established guilt.
Rejecting the plea regarding absence of motive, the court held that the accused himself had disclosed during investigation that he became enraged after the tanker collided with his truck and decided to take revenge.
The court also found the accused’s allegation of “personal grudge” wholly unsupported by any evidence, observing that neither the eyewitness nor any prosecution witness had any prior enmity with him.
Key Observations
Summarising the evidence, the court held: “A complete and unbroken chain emerges pointing unmistakably towards the guilt of the accused.” It further concluded: “The prosecution has successfully established beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused Showkat Ahmad Bhat, after stopping the tanker driven by deceased Naseeb Singh, dragged him out of the vehicle and repeatedly assaulted him with an iron rod, causing injuries which ultimately resulted in his death.”
The court added that: “The repeated assault with an iron rod upon a defenceless person and the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased clearly bring the act within the ambit of murder punishable under Section 302 RPC.”
Accordingly, the Principal Sessions Judge convicted Showkat Ahmad Bhat under Sections 302 and 427 RPC. The sentence is to be pronounced separately.
