The accused had been charged with killing of four ladies and two children at the house of the father of army personnel. Mere presence of the accused at the crime scene cannot be a sole reason to invoke charges against the accused, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court held recently by acquitting the person accused of murder charges of father and other relatives of an Army Personnel.
Background of the Case
The Court was dealing with an appeal instituted by the appellant against the judgment passed by the court of Principal Sessions Judge, Rajouri wherein it was pronounced that the respondent stands acquitted of the charges framed against him under Section 302, 120-B,121,123,449 Ranbir Penal Code read with Sections 4/27 and 7/25 Arms Act.
The accused had charges of murder of four ladies and two children at the residence of the father of an Army Personnel.
Case of the Appellant
The appeal was filed on the grounds that the trial court erred in law by acquitting the accused of all charges. Moreover, the appellant stated that the trial court did not take into consideration the evidence of the prosecution fairly, as the prosecution witnesses fully supported and strengthened the case of the prosecution and hence proved that the allegations alleged against the accused are true in nature.
Observation of the Court
The High Court analyzed and the testimonies of the witnesses in order to from a link. One of the testimonies was an eye witness Lal Begum who stated in her testimony to see the face of the accused Qayoom alone and not of the other accused, as due to her old age and weak eye sight she could have a vivid vision.
Considering the same, the Court ruled that the benefit of doubt with respect to presence of accused at the crime scene should be in favor of the accused. The Court noted that even if we taken into consideration the testimony of the eye witness confirming the presence of the accused still there is no mention of any such act in the testimony which proves that the accused contributed in the killings.
His presence cannot be the only ground to accuse him of such serious charges, unless his participation in killings is proved through direct or circumstantial evidence.
“There can be every possibility that the accused was forced to accompany the other three persons to the house of where the killing too place.”
“Except for stating presence of accused on spot, there is no murmur in the statement of the witness about the accused carrying the killings himself or helping the others in the diabolic act. Mere presence of accused, in any case, cannot implicate him in the case”, the Court observed.
Case Details
Before: Jammu and Kashmir High Court
Case Title: State v. Abdul Qayoom
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Kumar, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Puneet Gupta
Picture Source :
