J&K court sentences militant to life: ‘Human testimony cannot reproduce event with precision’

In a recent ruling by the Ramban court in Jammu and Kashmir, a militant named Mohammad Sharief received two life sentences for the 2005 murder of a family. Sharief, along with another militant Shabir Ahmed, allegedly entered Rashid Bohra's home on July 27, 2005, and opened fire, resulting in the deaths of three family members, including a five-month-old baby. Rashid and his daughter-in-law survived the attack but sustained severe injuries. Sharief was apprehended in 2019, while Ahmed, who remained at large, died in 2006.

The court rejected the defense's argument that Sharief's trial should be dismissed due to discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence. Principal Sessions Judge Ajay Kumar Gupta emphasized that human testimony is not required to replicate an event with absolute precision. He stated that only discrepancies related to the core event, the assailant's identity, and the presence of witnesses could significantly impact the credibility of the prosecution's narrative.

Minor inconsistencies in sequence, position, spoken words, or peripheral details are expected over time.

The judge also dismissed the defense's claim that there was a delay in recording the testimonies of two eyewitnesses, Abdul Rashid and Mashooma Begum, by one to four months. The court acknowledged that the delay was justified due to the extreme medical trauma, prolonged unconsciousness, and the victims' desperate fight for survival.

Abdul Rashid was hit six times by AK-47 bullets, rendering him unconscious for seven days after arriving at a hospital in Jammu for treatment. Mashooma Begum, who was hit approximately 15-16 times, was also left unconscious at the scene and regained consciousness a week later.

The court highlighted that Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) mandates that a witness must have the physical capability and mental faculty to recount complex and traumatic events. The prosecution's case, according to the judge, did not involve an able-bodied witness who deliberately withheld information and then suddenly disclosed it months later.

Similarly, the court rejected the notion that a person who witnessed the brutal killing of his wife, daughter, and six-month-old grandson and sustained critical injuries would be physically and mentally capable of providing a detailed police statement immediately.