Back
Medical Evidence Contradicting Testimony
The has delivered a landmark in a decades-old murder case, setting aside a trial court judgment that had sentenced twelve individuals to life imprisonment. The ruling serves as a stern reminder of the judiciary's role as the final arbiter of evidence, emphasizing that while enmity can provide a motive, it cannot sustain a in the absence of credible, .
The Midnight Shadow: Background of the Case The case stems from a tragic incident on , when Sarfaraz, who was ploughing a field in the village of Singwahar, was allegedly set upon by 12 men. The alleged that these individuals, armed with an assortment of licensed and stolen firearms, fired upon the victim simultaneously on the exhortation of one Kammu. By , the had found all twelve guilty under , sending them to life behind bars. Four decades later, a division bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi reviewed the surviving appeals of Ghulam, Hidayatullah, and Azizullah, finding the original "" and .
Arguments of the Factions Legal counsel for the appellants dismantled the 's narrative, pointing to systemic inconsistencies. They argued that the informant was not a witness to the crime, the so-called "star" eyewitnesses were conveniently placed, and there were no physical remnants—such as shell casings—to corroborate the claim of a massive, simultaneous fusillade. Conversely, the State insisted that the witnesses provided a consistent account of the event, and that minor discrepancies were merely the product of the long duration of the litigation.
The Anatomy of a Flawed The ’s legal analysis focused on the disconnect between the "" evidence offered by witnesses and the immutable physical evidence found during the .
Key Observations from the Judgment:
"If 12 accused persons will target and fire simultaneously upon the deceased, Sarfaraz, then in this condition, more than 12 and minimum 12 gun-shot injuries must be present at the body of the deceased... we find that according to the post mortem report, Exhibit Ka-4, only three entry wound of gun-shot injuries are found."
"Suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof, and there is a large difference between something that 'may be' proved, and something that 'will be proved'."
"It is a settled principle of law that only on the ground of enmity, no accused person could be held guilty for commission of the heinous crime like murder."
The bench relied upon the ’s precedent in , noting that when medical evidence reveals such a stark contradiction to the testimony provided in court, the entire story loses its veneer of reliability. The Court further noted that the "unnatural" conduct of a witness—who claimed his firearm was snatched yet failed to file a report—severely undermined the credibility of the individuals placed at the scene. Furthermore, the court highlighted that testimony from a photographer (PW-7) suggested the scene of the crime may have been tampered with by police, casting a long, dark cloud of suspicion over the integrity of the initial investigation.
A Final Determination The concluded that the trial court's decision was based on "" tied to the background of enmity between the parties, rather than rigorous legal proof. By allowing the appeal and acquitting the three surviving appellants, the Court re-established a vital legal threshold: the rests entirely on the , and that burden can only be met when clear, , and bridges the distance between "may be true" and "must be true."
The appellants, who have lived under the shadow of this for , are now free, with their bail bonds cancelled and the long litigation finally at rest.
