Court Cites Lack of Reliable Evidence and Extends Benefit of Doubt to Accused
In a significant judgment, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court, on December 24, 2025, acquitted four individuals, including Nazir Ahmad Bhat, in a high-profile murder case dating back to 1997. The case involved a violent altercation between two groups in Anantnag, resulting in one fatality and several injuries. The court found the evidence presented by the prosecution to be inconsistent and insufficient to conclusively establish the guilt of the accused.
The appeals arose from a decision by the Sessions Judge, Anantnag, which had convicted Nazir Ahmad Bhat and three others under Section 304-I of the Ranbir Penal Code, sentencing them to three years of rigorous imprisonment. The remaining accused were acquitted due to a lack of evidence.
The High Court, comprising Justices Sanjeev Kumar and Sanjay Parihar, emphasized the importance of reliable and consistent evidence in criminal trials. The court noted that the prosecution failed to establish a clear nexus between the accused, the weapon, and the fatal injuries sustained by the deceased. The judgment underscored the principle that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
The court highlighted significant contradictions in the prosecution's case, including discrepancies in witness testimonies regarding the time, place, and manner of the incident. The evidence suggested a "free fight" between the parties, with stone pelting and mutual aggression, making it difficult to ascertain who inflicted the fatal injuries.
The court criticized the prosecution's failure to convincingly link the recovered weapons to the injuries and noted investigative lapses that further weakened the case. In light of these factors, the court extended the benefit of doubt to the accused, acquitting them of all charges.
The judgment also dismissed a related appeal by the state seeking to enhance the charges to murder, citing a lack of cogent evidence to support such a conviction. The court's decision highlights the judiciary's commitment to upholding the presumption of innocence and ensuring that convictions are based on solid and credible evidence.
Bottom Line:
In cases of conflicting and inconsistent evidence, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused, especially when the prosecution fails to establish a clear nexus between the accused, the weapon, and the fatal injury.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 302, 304-I, 34, 323, 341, 336 of the Ranbir Penal Code
State Of J & K v. Nazir Ahmad Bhat, (Jammu And Kashmir)(DB)(Srinagar) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2827365
