Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Deepak Singh vs The U.T Of Jammu & Kashmir on 23 April, 2026
Author: Sanjeev Kumar
Bench: Sanjeev Kumar
2026:JKLHC-JMU:1090-DB
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
ATJAMMU
Crl A(D) No. 04/2024
c/w
Crl. Ref.(L) No. 05/2024
Reserved on: 02.04.2026
Pronounced on : 23.04.2026
Uploaded on: 23.04.2026
Whether the operative part or
full judgment is pronounced: "FULL"
1. Deepak Singh, aged 36 years, ...Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s)
son of Ramesh Singh,
Presently lodged in District Jail, Udhampur.
2. Shammi Singh, aged 35 years,
son of Ravi Singh,
Presently lodged in District Jail, Poonch.
3. Manjeet Singh, aged 38 years,
son of Surjeet Singh,
Presently lodged in District Jail, Ambphalla,
Jammu.
4. Charanjeet Singh, aged 26 years,
son of Surjeet Singh,
Presently lodged in District Jail, Rajouri.
All residents of Sattrayian,
Tehsil R.S. Pura, District Jammu.
Through: - Mr. R.K. Kotwal, Advocate with
Mr. Fahim Ahmed Mir, Advocate
v/s
The U.T of Jammu & Kashmir, ...Respondent(s)
through the Station House Officer,
Police Station, R.S. Pura,
Jammu.
Through:- Mr. Sunil Sethi, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Ravinder Gupta, AAG with
Ms. Palvi Sharma, Advocate &
Ms. Mehar Bali, Advocate
Mr. Abdul Hafeez, Advocate
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
2026:JKLHC-JMU:1090-DB
Sanjay Parihar-J
1. The appellants, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 24.01.2024 passed by 1st Additional Sessions
Judge, Jammu “the trial court” in the case titled State vs. Deepak
Singh and Ors., arising out of FIR No. 132/2014 of Police Station R.S.
Pura under Sections 452, 302, 34 RPC read with Sections 4/25 and 30
of the Arms Act, awarding sentence of imprisonment for life and
imposing of fine, seek reversal of the said judgment and their
consequent acquittal. It is submitted that the prosecution has failed to
establish the charges against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt,
and the impugned judgment is unsustainable both in law and on facts.
2. The prosecution case rests primarily on the testimonies of three alleged
eye-witnesses, namely PW-1 Anil Sharma, PW-2 Kishore Sharma, and
PW-3 Vijay Kumar. However, their statements suffer from serious
infirmities as they are interested witnesses and lack independent
corroboration. Moreover, their statements were recorded after an
unexplained delay of more than one month from the date of the alleged
incident. The prosecution has failed to offer any plausible explanation
for such delay, thereby rendering their testimonies susceptible to
embellishment, exaggeration, and afterthought, which significantly
diminishes their evidentiary value.
3. It is further submitted that the presence of appellant Deepak Singh at
the scene of crime is highly doubtful. Evidence on record indicates that
he was serving in the Army and was posted at Baramulla at the
CrlA(D) No. 04/2024
c/w
Crl. Ref.(L) No. 05/2024 Page 2 of 22
2026:JKLHC-JMU:1090-DB
relevant time. His superior authority has disputed his presence at the
place of occurrence, thereby establishing a strong alibi which the
prosecution has failed to rebut. There are also material contradictions
regarding the place of occurrence. While the eye-witnesses have
deposed that the incident took place inside the shop, PW-10 Satpal
Sharma, the forensic witness and one of the first to reach the spot, has
stated that the samples were lifted from outside the shop, i.e., from the
thoroughfare. The prosecution has failed to reconcile this
contradiction, thereby creating serious doubt about the exact place and
manner of occurrence.
4. The ocular version of the prosecution is further contradicted by the
medical evidence. The prosecution alleges that appellants Manjeet
Singh, Charanjeet Singh and Shammi Singh were armed with tokas
and inflicted multiple injuries upon the deceased Vinod Kumar.
However, the medical report reveals that the deceased sustained only a
single bullet injury, with no injuries attributable to any sharp or blunt
weapon. This inconsistency between the ocular and medical evidence
strikes at the root of the prosecution case and renders the alleged role
and presence of the said appellants doubtful. It is also submitted that
the prosecution has failed to establish any prior meeting of minds or
common intention among the appellants so as to attract the provisions
of Section 34 RPC. There is no credible evidence on record to show
any pre-arranged plan or concerted action by the appellants.
5. The prosecution version is further weakened by serious procedural
lapses relating to the FIR. PW-1 Anil Sharma has denied having
CrlA(D) No. 04/2024
c/w
Crl. Ref.(L) No. 05/2024 Page 3 of 22
2026:JKLHC-JMU:1090-DB
lodged any written report with Police Station R.S. Pura, which
undermines the prosecution’s case regarding the origin of the FIR.
Additionally, the FIR was not dispatched in compliance with Section
157 Cr.P.C., and Column No. 15 of the FIR does not indicate when the
copy was transmitted to the Court. These omissions cast serious doubt
on the authenticity and timing of the FIR, particularly with respect to
the naming of the appellants. Furthermore, the unexplained delay of
more than one month in recording the statements of the alleged eye-
witnesses raises grave suspicion. In the absence of any explanation, it
is doubtful how the investigating agency initially came to know the
names and particulars of the appellants, thereby indicating possible
fabrication and manipulation during investigation.
6. There is also a material inconsistency regarding the weapon allegedly
used in the commission of the offence. PW-16 Dr. Sanjeev Bhardwaj
has opined that the death was caused by a bullet fired from a revolver,
whereas the weapon allegedly recovered is a gun, suggesting death by
pellets. This contradiction creates a serious gap in the chain of
evidence and further weakens the prosecution case. Lastly, the
prosecution has failed to establish any credible motive for the
commission of the alleged offence. In a case where the evidence is
otherwise doubtful and unreliable, the absence of motive assumes
considerable significance and further entitles the appellants to the
benefit of doubt.
7. Per contra, the respondents have urged there is no perversity in
conviction of appellants as the prosecution have proved the charges
CrlA(D) No. 04/2024
c/w
Crl. Ref.(L) No. 05/2024 Page 4 of 22
2026:JKLHC-JMU:1090-DB
beyond doubt. That prosecution version is further strengthened from
the own admission of the appellants who have failed in dislodging the
credibility of eye witnesses.
8. Briefly stating case of the prosecution happened to be that, PW Anil
Sharma, son of Tirath Ram and real brother of the deceased Vinod
Kumar, lodged a written report before the Police Station R.S. Pura.
The complainant stated that he is a resident of Village Sattrayian and a
businessman by profession. He further alleged that accused Deepak
Singh, son of Ramesh Singh, and Manjeet Singh and Charanjeet Singh,
sons of Surjeet Singh, all residents of the same village, were having
prior enmity with him and his brothers. It was alleged that on
08.07.2014 at about 02:15 PM, the deceased Vinod Kumar was sitting
in his shop located at Ward No. 12 and was watching television. At
that time, Vijay Kumar, the complainant’s uncle, was also present in
his own shop situated opposite to the shop of the deceased. When the
complainant reached the shop after having his meals, he saw
appellants, Deepak Singh, Manjeet Singh, Charanjeet Singh, along
with one unknown person, entering the shop of the deceased armed
with a gun and sharp-edged weapons (Tokas). Acting with a common
intention to kill, they attacked Vinod Kumar. It was specifically
alleged that accused Deepak Singh was carrying a gun, while the other
accused were armed with Tokas. Upon the alarm raised by the
complainant and his uncle, accused Deepak Singh fired from the gun,
causing grievous injuries to Vinod Kumar, after which all the accused
fled from the spot.
CrlA(D) No. 04/2024
c/w
Crl. Ref.(L) No. 05/2024 Page 5 of 22
2026:JKLHC-JMU:1090-DB
9. The injured Vinod Kumar was immediately taken to Government
Hospital, R.S. Pura by Vijay Kumar and others, where he was declared
brought dead. On the basis of the written report, FIR No. 132 of 2014
was registered at Police Station R.S. Pura on the same day at 15:00
hours under Sections 452, 302, 34 of the Ranbir Penal Code and
Sections 3/25 and 4/25 of the Arms Act. The investigation of the case
was entrusted to Inspector Deepak Singh Jasrotia, SHO of Police
Station R.S. Pura.During the course of investigation, accused Deepak
Singh and Manjeet Singh were arrested on 09.07.2014 and 10.07.2014
respectively, whereas accused Shammi Singh and Charanjeet Singh
were arrested later on 07.08.2014. After their arrest, all the accused
persons are stated to have made disclosure statements. On 11.07.2014,
accused Deepak Singh made a disclosure statement leading to the
recovery of a double barrel gun, two live cartridges, one empty
cartridge and a motorcycle bearing registration No. JK02BE-0197. The
recovered gun bore the inscription “GURMAN STEEL BARREL” on
its barrel.
10. During the investigation, the Investigating Officer, along with the
Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) team, visited the place of
occurrence and collected incriminating evidence. Statements of FSL
experts and the photographer were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
After conducting the post-mortem through a board of doctors, the body
of the deceased was handed over to his relatives for last rites. The
clothes of the deceased were seized, and the sealed items were
subsequently got resealed through the Executive Magistrate. Chance
CrlA(D) No. 04/2024
c/w
Crl. Ref.(L) No. 05/2024 Page 6 of 22
2026:JKLHC-JMU:1090-DB
fingerprints lifted from the double barrel gun were sent to the FSL
along with admitted fingerprints of accused Deepak Singh for
comparison.
11. Further investigation revealed that accused Deepak Singh was absent
without authorization from Military Transit Camp No. 213, Jammu on
08.07.2014, as confirmed by a certificate obtained during
investigation. It was also found that he had left the Transit Camp on
07.07.2014 without permission, met the co-accused, and participated in
the commission of the offence on 08.07.2014 in furtherance of a pre-
planned conspiracy. Statements of witnesses were recorded under
Sections 161 and 164-A Cr.P.C. Upon completion of investigation, all
the accused were found to have committed offences punishable under
Sections 302, 452, 34 of the RPC and Sections 4/25 and 30 of the
Arms Act. Accordingly, the Investigating Officer filed the charge-
sheet against the accused persons for the aforesaid offences.
12. The appellants were charged for offences under Sections 302, 452, 34
of the RPC and Sections 4/25 and 30 of the Arms Act, to which they
pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined PW-1 Anil Sharma, PW-
2 Kishore Sharma and PW-3 Vijay Kumar as eye-witnesses; PW-4
Ranjeet Kumar and PW-5 Babli Sharma as witnesses of circumstantial
evidence; PW-6 Rashpal Kumar and PW-7 Tarsem Lal for proof of
seizure memos; PW-8 Jagdish Raj to prove the DVD allegedly
showing the presence of all the appellants at a Restaurant at R.S. Pura
prior to the occurrence; PW-12 Rajinder Singh Jamwal as FSL expert;
PW-13 Lt. Colonel Iqbal Hussain, the Army officer who handed over
CrlA(D) No. 04/2024
c/w
Crl. Ref.(L) No. 05/2024 Page 7 of 22
2026:JKLHC-JMU:1090-DB
custody of appellant Deepak Singh to the police; PW-13-A Mool Raj,
Scientific Officer, FSL; PW-16 Dr. Sanjeev Bhardwaj, Medical
Officer; and PW-17 Inspector Deepak Jasrotia, the Investigating
Officer. The appellants were examined under Section 342 Cr.P.C. with
respect to incriminating circumstances, which they denied, claiming
false implication and feigning ignorance about the incident.
13. PW-1 Anil Sharma deposed that on 08.07.2014, while the deceased
was sitting in his shop, he had gone home to bring food, and upon
returning, he saw the appellants in the shop of the deceased. He stated
that appellant Deepak Singh was holding a gun, while the others were
carrying Tokas, and that they started abusing the deceased, after which
Deepak Singh fired a shot at him. He stated that PW-2 Kishore Sharma
and PW-3 Vijay Kumar, who were in adjoining shops, also witnessed
the incident, and that Vinod Kumar died on the spot and was taken to
the hospital, where he died en route. He denied having lodged any
written report with the police and claimed that he made his first
statement under Section 164-A Cr.P.C. He identified his signatures on
certain documents but denied knowledge of their contents or
preparation. He further denied any disclosure statements being made in
his presence and expressed ignorance regarding the lodging of the FIR
and prior disputes. He stated that he remained at home from
08.07.2014 till 07.08.2014 and admitted that blood had spilled in the
vehicle and on his clothes while shifting the deceased, though he
denied any false implication arising out of alleged illicit relations
involving his sister.
CrlA(D) No. 04/2024
c/w
Crl. Ref.(L) No. 05/2024 Page 8 of 22
2026:JKLHC-JMU:1090-DB
14. PW-2 Kishore Sharma deposed that on 08.07.2014 at about 02:15 PM,
while sitting at his uncle’s shop, he saw the appellants arriving in an
Alto car and a motorcycle. He stated that Deepak Singh was carrying a
gun while the others had Tokas, and that they entered the shop of the
deceased, grappled with him and started beating him. He informed
PW-3 Vijay Kumar, and shortly thereafter PW-1 Anil Sharma also
arrived. He stated that Deepak Singh fired at the deceased and the
others inflicted injuries with Tokas, after which the deceased was taken
to the hospital. He also spoke about recoveries of weapons but
contradicted himself by stating that no disclosure statements were
made in his presence. He admitted the existence of prior criminal
litigation between the parties and acknowledged earlier statements
regarding an alleged illicit relationship involving appellant Manjeet
Singh and his sister. He further admitted that he had not made any
statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. between 08.07.2014 and
13.08.2014, and that his statement under Section 164-A Cr.P.C. was
recorded only on 13.08.2014.
15. PW-3 Vijay Kumar deposed that on 08.07.2014, while he was sitting
in his shop adjacent to that of the deceased, he saw the appellants enter
the shop and attack the deceased, with Deepak Singh firing a gunshot.
He stated that by the time he and others reached the spot, the
appellants had fled. He saw the deceased bleeding from a gunshot
injury and, along with others, took him to the hospital, where he was
declared dead. He stated that the police and FSL team later visited the
spot and collected evidence. He admitted that he made his statement
CrlA(D) No. 04/2024
c/w
Crl. Ref.(L) No. 05/2024 Page 9 of 22
2026:JKLHC-JMU:1090-DB
before the Magistrate for the first time on 05.08.2014 and that he
remained at home between 08.07.2014 and 05.08.2014. He also
admitted that the deceased had not sustained any injuries from a Toka.
16. PW-9 Somnath deposed that he had sold a 12-bore gun to appellant
Deepak Singh in 2009 and had issued five cartridges to him on
06.07.2014. PW-5 Babli Sharma stated that she was threatened by the
appellants on 07.08.2014 and that she came to know about the incident
from her son, though she admitted she had not witnessed it. PW-8
Jagdish Raj stated that CCTV footage from Indereshwar Restaurant
was taken and seized on 08.07.2014 before noon. PW-10 Satpal
Sharma, a forensic official, deposed that he recovered pellets, blood
samples and blood-stained clay from the place of occurrence, though
he clarified that the location was a thoroughfare and not a shop,
contrary to earlier statements.
17. PW-13-A Mool Raj deposed regarding chemical and serological
examination of exhibits. PW-12 Rajinder Singh Jamwal, the ballistic
expert, stated that the shotgun was functional and had been fired, and
that the cartridge and projectiles corresponded to it; however, he
admitted that the gun was not shown to him in court, that it lacked
certain markings, that the projectiles bore no blood stains, and that he
was unaware of the custody of the exhibits prior to examination. PW-
13 Lt. Colonel Iqbal Hussain deposed that appellant Deepak Singh was
handed over to the police from the Transit Camp Jammu on
09.07.2014, and described the security features of the camp, while
CrlA(D) No. 04/2024
c/w
Crl. Ref.(L) No. 05/2024 Page 10 of 22
2026:JKLHC-JMU:1090-DB
admitting lack of clarity regarding the appellant’s movement and
absence.
18. PW-16 Dr. Sanjeev Bhardwaj, who conducted the post-mortem, found
a single gunshot injury with entry and exit wounds, extensive damage
to neck structures, and opined that death was due to haemorrhagic
shock resulting from the injury. He noted that no opinion was sought
from him regarding the weapon used, and stated that the injury could
possibly have been caused by a revolver. PW-17 Inspector Deepak
Jasrotia, the Investigating Officer, admitted several lapses in
investigation, including unexplained delay in recording statements,
failure to send the report under Section 157 Cr.P.C., non-seizure of key
evidence such as the vehicle and blood-stained clothes, lack of
verification from hospital authorities, absence of proof regarding the
accused’s presence, and failure to properly investigate the alleged
motive or the movements of appellant Deepak Singh from the Transit
Camp. He also admitted deficiencies in the recovery of weapons and
lack of forensic linkage. This, in essence, constitutes the prosecution
evidence.
19. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and upon
perusal of the entire record, this Court is called upon to determine
whether the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt and whether the findings returned by the Trial Court
suffer from any infirmity warranting interference.
20. The appellants, when confronted with the incriminating evidence,
denied all allegations, asserting false implication and ignorance
CrlA(D) No. 04/2024
c/w
Crl. Ref.(L) No. 05/2024 Page 11 of 22
2026:JKLHC-JMU:1090-DB
regarding any disclosure or recovery of incriminating material.
Appellant Deepak Singh admitted ownership of a licensed firearm and
procurement of cartridges duly recorded in his licence, while appellant
Manjeet Singh also claimed innocence. Notably, the appellants chose
not to lead any defence evidence despite being afforded the
opportunity. The Trial Court, relying upon the testimonies of PW-1,
PW-2, and PW-3, held that their accounts stood corroborated by
medical evidence and concluded that all four appellants acted in
concert, sharing a common intention and physically participating in the
crime. However, the medical evidence, particularly the testimony of
PW-16 Dr. Sanjeev Bhardwaj, established that the deceased died due
to a single fatal firearm injury with entry and exit wounds, and no
other injuries were found on the body.
21. The prosecution case rests on the assertion that appellant Deepak
Singh was armed with a 12-bore shotgun, while the remaining
appellants carried tokas and collectively assaulted the deceased.
However, this version is materially contradicted by the medical
evidence, which does not disclose any sharp-edged injuries on the
body of the deceased. Such a discrepancy strikes at the root of the
prosecution narrative, particularly regarding the participation of the co-
accused allegedly wielding sharp weapons. In the absence of
corroborative medical evidence, the attribution of a common intention
under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code becomes doubtful, as the
provision mandates clear proof of a prior meeting of minds and a
shared design to commit the offence.
CrlA(D) No. 04/2024
c/w
Crl. Ref.(L) No. 05/2024 Page 12 of 22
2026:JKLHC-JMU:1090-DB
22. In Ganesh Datt vs. State of Uttarakhand, AIR 2014 SC 2521, dealt
with a similar inconsistency between ocular and medical evidence,
where the eyewitnesses alleged firearm injuries, but the medical report
revealed no such injuries. The Court held that when ocular evidence is
wholly inconsistent with medical evidence, particularly regarding the
manner of assault, such testimony cannot be relied upon–especially
when the witnesses are interested or inimical. Likewise, in Shahid
Khan vs. State of Rajasthan, (2016) 3 SCC Criminal 211, the Apex
Court emphasized that an unexplained delay in recording statements of
eyewitnesses creates serious doubt about their presence at the scene
and the authenticity of their version, ultimately leading to the setting
aside of the conviction.
23. At the same time, it is settled law that delay alone is not always fatal.
In State of UP vs. Satish 2005 3 SCC 114, the Supreme Court held
that delayed examination of witnesses does not necessarily discredit
their testimony if it is otherwise cogent and trustworthy. Unless the
defence asks investigating officer categorically as to why there was a
delay. Similarly, in Bodh Raj vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir
50/2013 D.O.D 25.07.2023, it was observed that delay in recording
statements is not fatal where the witnesses withstand the test of cross-
examination and inspire confidence.
24. On a careful appreciation of the evidence in light of the settled legal
principles governing criminal trials, the testimonies of PW-1 Anil
Sharma, PW-2 Kishore Sharma, and PW-3 Vijay Kumar do not inspire
confidence and appear fraught with material inconsistencies and
CrlA(D) No. 04/2024
c/w
Crl. Ref.(L) No. 05/2024 Page 13 of 22
2026:JKLHC-JMU:1090-DB
improbabilities.PW-1 Anil Sharma, though admitting his signature on
the written complaint, categorically denied having submitted the same.
This assumes significance because the prosecution has projected the
said document as the very foundation of the FIR. Once the maker of
the document disowns its authorship, the prosecution was under an
obligation to clarify the circumstances under which the FIR came to be
registered and how the involvement of the appellants was disclosed to
the police. In the absence of such explanation, a serious dent is caused
to the genesis of the prosecution case. Moreover, PW-1’s version that
he was away for lunch and only returned to see the aftermath of the
assault is contradicted by the prosecution narrative portraying him as
an eyewitness.
25. This contradiction is further compounded by the testimonies of PW-2
and PW-3, who also admit that PW-1 was not present at the scene
when the incident occurred. Despite this, all three witnesses attempt to
project themselves as eyewitnesses to the assault by all four appellants,
attributing specific roles and weapons to each of them. However, at the
cost of repetition, the medical evidence belies this version, as it records
only a single gunshot injury as the cause of death, with no indication of
injuries caused by sharp-edged weapons allegedly used by the other
accused. This inconsistency between ocular and medical evidence
strikes at the root of the prosecution case.
26. Additionally, the conduct of these witnesses appears unnatural. By
their own admission, they did not intervene during the incident and
only reached the spot after the fatal shot had already been fired. Even
CrlA(D) No. 04/2024
c/w
Crl. Ref.(L) No. 05/2024 Page 14 of 22
2026:JKLHC-JMU:1090-DB
if such conduct is momentarily accepted, it remains unexplained why
none of them promptly approached the police to lodge either a written
or oral report, particularly when they claim to have firsthand
knowledge of the occurrence. The delay in recording their statements
during investigation, and the fact that they disclosed their purported
eyewitness account only after 5th August 2014, raises a strong
possibility of deliberation and embellishment.
27. The prosecution version is further weakened by the lack of
corroborative evidence regarding the transportation of the injured to
the hospital. Although the witnesses claim that they carried the
deceased in a private vehicle and that their clothes were stained with
blood, the investigating agency neither seized the vehicle nor collected
or examined the bloodstained clothes. Such omissions assume
importance as they deprive the prosecution of independent
corroboration of the presence of these witnesses at the scene and their
subsequent conduct. It is also noteworthy that while appellants Deepak
Singh and Manjeet Singh were arrested shortly after the incident, the
other appellants were apprehended only after the statements of these
witnesses were recorded under Section 164-A, which further casts
doubt on the spontaneity and truthfulness of their version. Had these
witnesses actually been present and witnessed the crime, there was no
reason for them to withhold the identities of the assailants even for a
brief period.
28. In totality, the contradictions regarding the lodging of the FIR, the
doubtful presence of the witnesses at the scene, inconsistencies
CrlA(D) No. 04/2024
c/w
Crl. Ref.(L) No. 05/2024 Page 15 of 22
2026:JKLHC-JMU:1090-DB
between ocular and medical evidence, unexplained delays, lack of
corroboration, makes the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3,
therefore, does not meet the threshold of credibility required to sustain
a conviction. The prosecution’s attempt to establish prior conspiracy
through CCTV footage also fails, as the DVD was allegedly seized
before the occurrence of the crime and was not proved in accordance
with the requirements of Section 65-B of the Evidence Act. Even, the
witness associated with the footage did not confirm having seen the
appellants together prior to the incident. Consequently, the theory of a
premeditated plan involving all four appellants remains
unsubstantiated.
29. In light of the foregoing analysis, the prosecution case reveals
significant deficiencies insofar as appellants 2 to 4 are concerned,
rendering their involvement in the crime highly doubtful. The
evidentiary record does not convincingly establish that they acted in
concert with appellant Deepak Singh or shared any common intention
to commit the offence on 08.07.2014. The alleged recovery of Tokas at
their instance loses evidentiary value once the very disclosure
statements are rendered doubtful, particularly in view of the consistent
denial by prosecution witnesses regarding such disclosures.
Furthermore, the ocular version attributing active participation to these
appellants stands contradicted by the medical evidence, making it
unsafe to rely upon such assertions. The prosecution has also failed to
substantiate its claim that all the appellants were seen together prior to
the incident, as neither CCTV footage was proved nor credible oral
CrlA(D) No. 04/2024
c/w
Crl. Ref.(L) No. 05/2024 Page 16 of 22
2026:JKLHC-JMU:1090-DB
evidence led to establish any prior meeting or planning. Mere presence
near the scene, even if accepted, cannot by itself lead to an inference of
shared intention to commit murder. The delayed implication of
appellants Shammi Singh and Charanjeet Singh, coupled with their
arrest after 05.08.2014, raises a reasonable apprehension of false
implication, possibly owing to their association with the principal
accused. Even the evidence against appellant Manjeet Singh remains
tenuous and unreliable, particularly in light of the doubtful conduct and
credibility of key prosecution witnesses.
30. However, the case stands on a markedly different footing with respect
to appellant Deepak Singh. The circumstantial evidence against him
forms a consistent and coherent chain pointing unerringly towards his
guilt. The medical and forensic evidence conclusively establishes that
the death was caused by a firearm injury, specifically from a 12-bore
shotgun. The recovery of pellets from both the body of the deceased
and the scene of occurrence firmly corroborates the use of such a
weapon, effectively dispelling any ambiguity arising from the medical
officer’s tentative reference to a revolver. The ballistic expert’s
testimony further strengthens the prosecution case by confirming that
the seized shotgun, licensed to Deepak Singh, was in working
condition and had been fired. The absence of the weapon during trial
does not materially affect the prosecution’s case, as the seizure records
and forensic report sufficiently establish its identity and use.
31. Crucially, the evidence of PW-9 Somnath establishes that cartridges
were issued to Deepak Singh shortly before the occurrence, a fact
CrlA(D) No. 04/2024
c/w
Crl. Ref.(L) No. 05/2024 Page 17 of 22
2026:JKLHC-JMU:1090-DB
admitted by him in his statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C. This
circumstance, when read alongside his unexplained absence during the
crucial period between 6th and 9th July 2014, assumes great
significance. Testimony from the Army authorities indicates that he
was missing from the 213 Transit Camp, Jammu, without permission
and returned only on the morning of 09.07.2014, when he was
subsequently handed over to the police. This unexplained absence, a
fact especially within his knowledge, provides a strong incriminating
link. His presence in the vicinity, the procurement of cartridges, and
his conduct in absconding from duty cumulatively lead to a singular
inference that he was responsible for the fatal act.
32. The argument regarding absence of motive is also unpersuasive, as the
defence itself suggested prior enmity arising out of alleged personal
relations involving the deceased’s family, thereby acknowledging the
existence of a possible motive. While enmity can cut both ways, in the
present case it lends support to the prosecution’s version when
considered alongside the other incriminating circumstances. The
submission regarding lapses in investigation, such as non-seizure of
certain articles or failure to send reports under Section 157 Cr.P.C.,
though not commendable, does not by itself entitle the appellant to
acquittal. It is a settled principle that defective investigation cannot be
a ground for discarding otherwise reliable prosecution evidence. In C.
Muniappan v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2010 SC 3178, the Supreme
Court held that lapses on the part of the Investigating Officer cannot
benefit the accused unless serious prejudice is shown. Similarly, in
CrlA(D) No. 04/2024
c/w
Crl. Ref.(L) No. 05/2024 Page 18 of 22
2026:JKLHC-JMU:1090-DB
State of Karnataka v. K. Yarapa Reddy AIR 2000 SC 185, it was
observed that if the investigation is defective, the Court has to examine
whether the evidence on record is otherwise reliable. In the present
case, the core evidence remains intact and clearly points to the
culpability of appellant-Deepak Singh.
33. Accordingly, while the prosecution has failed to establish beyond
reasonable doubt the involvement of appellants 2 to 4 or the
applicability of Section 34 RPC, the case against Deepak Singh stands
firmly proved on the basis of circumstantial evidence. The chain of
circumstances is complete, consistent, and incompatible with any
hypothesis other than his guilt, thereby justifying his conviction. Thus,
while the prosecution fails to establish the guilt of the appellants
beyond reasonable doubt or to prove common intention under Section
34 IPC, the chain of circumstantial evidence clearly points towards
appellant Deepak Singh as the perpetrator of the offence.
34. The appellants argued that any alleged enmity existed solely between
the complainant and appellant Manjeet Singh, and therefore, if Manjeet
Singh’s involvement is disbelieved, the prosecution’s case against
appellant Deepak Singh cannot stand independently. This contention
was strongly opposed by the respondent, who maintained that the
defence itself introduced the theory of illicit relations during cross-
examination and suggested that the appellants, being close associates
of Manjeet Singh, were falsely implicated. As already noted, enmity is
a double-edged factor that may operate both for and against the parties.
While the prosecution’s case against Manjeet Singh has been found
CrlA(D) No. 04/2024
c/w
Crl. Ref.(L) No. 05/2024 Page 19 of 22
2026:JKLHC-JMU:1090-DB
unreliable, the evidence consistently establishes that Manjeet Singh
and Deepak Singh shared a close friendship, and that prior litigation
existed between them and the complainant party, including cross-cases
pending in courts at R.S. Pura and Jammu. In this background, it may
be hypothetically inferred that Manjeet Singh could have been present
with Deepak Singh near the scene of occurrence.
35. However, in the absence of any cogent and convincing evidence
demonstrating the active participation of Manjeet Singh in the
commission of the offence, it would be unsafe to hold him guilty
merely on account of his association with Deepak Singh. On the other
hand, the evidence against Deepak Singh is consistent and
incriminating, particularly regarding his use of a licensed weapon. His
status as an Army personnel, coupled with his proximity to Manjeet
Singh, may have facilitated the execution of the crime. Although no
specific plea was advanced by Deepak Singh, the cross-examination of
prosecution witnesses, especially PW-Lt. Colonel Iqbal Hussain,
reveals that Deepak Singh had gone missing from the Transit Camp
and reappeared on 09.07.2014, after which he was handed over to the
police. This circumstance lends further support to the prosecution’s
case.
36. It is a well-settled principle that motive, though relevant, is not an
indispensable requirement for sustaining a conviction, particularly in
cases resting on circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court of India
in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, 1984 4 SCC
116, authoritatively held that where the chain of circumstances is
CrlA(D) No. 04/2024
c/w
Crl. Ref.(L) No. 05/2024 Page 20 of 22
2026:JKLHC-JMU:1090-DB
complete and points unerringly towards the guilt of the accused, the
absence or weakness of motive is of no consequence. This principle
has been consistently reiterated in subsequent decisions, including
Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, 2006 10 SCC 681
and Nizam and Another v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2015 SC 3430,
wherein it has been observed that motive is only one link in the chain
of circumstances and cannot outweigh cogent and convincing evidence
establishing the guilt of the accused. Similarly, in Anwar Ali v. State
of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 2020 SC 4519, it was held that failure to
prove motive is not fatal when the prosecution succeeds in establishing
a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances. Thus, once the
prosecution is able to prove circumstances which form a coherent and
consistent chain leading only to the hypothesis of the guilt of the
accused, the alleged weakness of motive pales into insignificance and
does not detract from the probative force of the evidence on record.
37. Considering the entire chain of circumstances, it stands established
that Deepak Singh intentionally caused the death of the deceased. The
act appears to have been premeditated, as he absented himself from his
place of posting, procured ammunition from PW-Somnath, and
subsequently used it to shoot the deceased. The ballistic evidence
corroborates these material aspects. Even assuming that the motive is
weak, the unbroken chain of circumstances clearly points to Deepak
Singh as the principal offender responsible for the incident dated
08.07.2014. Accordingly, the offence under Section 302 RPC stands
fully proved against him, and his conviction warrants no interference.
CrlA(D) No. 04/2024
c/w
Crl. Ref.(L) No. 05/2024 Page 21 of 22
2026:JKLHC-JMU:1090-DB
In contrast, the case against appellants 2 to 4 fails for want of sufficient
evidence; their convictions and sentences are therefore set aside, and
they are acquitted. Hence appeal is allowed to the extent of appellants
2 to 4, who shall be set at liberty forthwith if not involved in any other
case, whereas appeal to the extent of appellant No. 1 (Deepak Singh) is
dismissed. The reference from the Trial Court is answered in these
terms. Copy of the judgment be notified to the Trial Court for
compliance.
(Sanjay Parihar) (Sanjeev Kumar)
Judge Judge
SRINAGAR
23.04.2026
Akhil Dev
Whether the order is speaking? : Yes
Whether the order is reportable? : Yes
CrlA(D) No. 04/2024
c/w
Crl. Ref.(L) No. 05/2024 Page 22 of 22