HC upholds acquittal in 2002 Kathua murder case, cites contradictory testimony and flawed investigation

31/05/2026

Jammu, May 30: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld the acquittal of a Kathua resident in a 2002 murder case, observing that serious contradictions in eyewitness accounts, failure to explain injuries on the accused, non-proof of recovery of the alleged weapon and doubts surrounding the FIR had rendered the prosecution case unreliable.
A Division Bench of Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Shahzad Azeem dismissed an acquittal appeal filed by the State against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kathua, dated August 7, 2012, whereby Balwinder Kumar alias Bittu was acquitted of charges under Sections 302 and 341 RPC read with Section 4/25 of the Arms Act.
According to the prosecution, the accused had allegedly stabbed Nasib Chand with a kirch in a village lane at Badala in Kathua district on July 19, 2002, following a long-standing enmity and a quarrel earlier in the day. The victim later succumbed to his injuries while being taken to hospital.
The appeal was argued by advocate Mehar Bali, assisted by Additional Advocate General Ravinder Gupta, on behalf of the State, while advocate Mayank Gupta appeared for the respondent-accused.
While examining the evidence, the High Court found that the prosecution case was primarily based on testimonies of the deceased's widow, sons and daughters, whose statements suffered from material inconsistencies regarding their presence at the scene and the sequence in which they reached the spot.
The Bench noted that one witness claimed he and his brother were working in fields when they heard cries and rushed to the spot, whereas the widow of the deceased stated that only she and her daughters had reached the place of occurrence. Another witness claimed an uncle accompanied them, but the uncle neither supported that version nor was cited as an eyewitness.
The court also took note of the fact that despite several villagers allegedly being present at the scene, the prosecution examined only one independent witness, Kiran Jyoti, who turned hostile and did not support the prosecution story. The witness even denied seeing the accused, the deceased or the alleged eyewitnesses at the spot.
Referring to a recent Supreme Court judgment, the High Court observed that testimony of a hostile witness can be relied upon not only for conviction but also for acquittal if it inspires confidence and finds support from other evidence on record.
The Division Bench further held that the prosecution had failed to prove the disclosure statement and recovery of the alleged weapon of offence. Witnesses cited to prove the recovery either were not examined or turned hostile during trial.
A significant factor that weighed with the court was the prosecution's failure to explain injuries suffered by the accused during the occurrence. The Bench noted that some prosecution witnesses admitted the accused had sustained injuries and was hospitalised but introduced a new theory during trial that he had stabbed himself after attacking the deceased. The court found that this version was absent from the FIR and statements recorded during investigation and amounted to a material improvement.
Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the court observed that non-explanation of injuries sustained by an accused in a murder case often indicates suppression of the true genesis of the occurrence and renders prosecution witnesses unreliable, particularly when they are close relatives of the deceased.
The Bench also expressed serious reservations about the FIR. While the FIR was shown to have been registered within about an hour of the occurrence, the complainant himself stated in cross-examination that he had gone to the police station only the next morning to lodge the report. The discrepancy, the court held, cast doubt on the spontaneity and genuineness of the FIR and suggested possible manipulation during investigation.
"We find no reason to interfere with the judgment of the trial court nor do we find any illegality, either on facts or in law, committed by the trial court while acquitting the accused by granting him the benefit of doubt," the Division Bench observed.
The court reiterated the settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that where two reasonable views are possible on the evidence, the one favouring the accused must be adopted. It added that even a small but material improbability in the prosecution story can create reasonable doubt and weaken the entire case.
Accordingly, the appeal filed by the State was dismissed and the acquittal of Balwinder Kumar alias Bittu was upheld.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty