Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar has dismissed the State’s appeal and affirmed the acquittal of three persons accused of conspiring to kill a man who died of multiple injuries. The prosecution case rested on an alleged extra-judicial statement said to have been made before a Panchayat, the account of a minor witness, and claimed recoveries linked to the accused. The Bench held that a confession not recorded before a Magistrate has no substantive evidentiary value and cannot, by itself, be used to convict a co-accused; the Panchayat statement was exculpatory, not strictly proved, and lacked independent corroboration. It added that such a statement can operate only as a supporting circumstance when other evidence already links the co-accused to the offence.

The appeal arose from a judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court in a case relating to offences under Sections 302 and 120-B of the Ranbir Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that the accused entered into a criminal conspiracy to murder the deceased during the intervening night of 30–31 March 2005 while he was sleeping in his kitchen, by inflicting injuries with sharp and blunt weapons. The prosecution relied upon three circumstances: an alleged extra-judicial confession before a Panchayat, the testimony of a minor eye-witness, and the recovery of weapons at the instance of the accused.

Also Read: Supreme Court Slams Hyderabad MACT For Handwriting Orders Despite E-Courts Project, Asks Telangana HC To Check Computer Availability And Ensure Typed Order Sheets

The defence disputed the genuineness and admissibility of the alleged confession and questioned the reliability of the minor witness, pointing to delay in recording her statement and contradictions with medical evidence. The prosecution maintained that the testimony was trustworthy and that motive was established through the Panchayat proceedings.

The Bench observed, “It is well settled that in an appeal against acquittal, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused stands further reinforced by the judgment of the Trial Court.” It further recorded, “Interference is warranted only when the findings recorded are perverse, manifestly illegal, or based on a complete misappreciation of material evidence.” The Court added, “Where two views are reasonably possible on the evidence, the view favourable to the accused must ordinarily be adopted.”

On the Panchayat confession, the Court recorded, “Such a statement does not amount to a voluntary and unambiguous confession in the eye of law and, in any event, could not be used as substantive evidence against the co-accused.” It further observed that “the delay of more than one month in convening the Panchayat and allegations of police influence further eroded its evidentiary value.”

Addressing admissibility, the Bench stated, “A confessional statement is not admissible unless made before a Magistrate, as mandated under Section 25 of the Evidence Act.” It further recorded, “What must be before the Court is a confession proper and not a mere incriminating circumstance or information.” The Court added, “Further, such a confession is not evidence within the meaning of Section 3 of the Evidence Act against the non-maker and can be used only as a corroborative piece of evidence when other independent evidence connects the co-accused with the crime.”

On appreciation of the overall evidence, the Court recorded, “In view of the glaring contradictions in the prosecution evidence and the absence of proof regarding the complicity of the respondents, the Trial Court has rightly concluded that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt.” It further stated, “The findings are based on proper appreciation of evidence and settled principles of criminal jurisprudence.”

Also Read: Education Not Charity Alone; Private Unaided Schools Entitled To Surplus And Reasonable Returns: J&K And Ladakh High Court Disposes Fee-Fixation Challenge

The Bench held, “We find no perversity or illegality in the impugned judgment warranting interference. The appellant has failed to demonstrate any compelling reasons to take a view different from that adopted by the Trial Court. The judgment of acquittal is, therefore, affirmed by dismissing the appeal.”

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Mr. Pawan Dev Singh, Deputy Advocate General
For the Respondents: Mr. P. N. Raina, Senior Advocate with Ms. Deeksha Handoo and Mr. J. A. Hamal, Advocates

Case Title: State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Daleep Singh & Ors.
Case Number: CRAA No. 22/2011
Bench: Justice Sanjeev Kumar, Justice Sanjay Parihar