26 years on Punjab and Haryana High Court sentences Army personnel, another to life for fatal shooting

More than 26 years after the fatal shooting of a person, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has overturned a trial court’s order of acquittal and sentenced three Army personnel and another accused to life imprisonment for the murder. The trial court had previously acquitted the three Army men and accused Bijender, after citing doubts over the prosecution’s evidence.

The trial court had accepted the defence’s claim regarding alibis, relying heavily on Army records and officer statements that placed Captain Anand, along with Yudhvir Singh and Raj Kumar, in Roorkee on the day of the crime. The court also noted inconsistencies in the prosecution’s motive argument.

The bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma observed that the case dated back to 1998 when victim Mahender Singh was fatally shot. Complainant Ramesh Kumar had alleged that altercations had earlier taken place between Mahender Singh and Raj Kumar’s family during panchayat elections resulting in an ill-will between the parties. The state was represented by Haryana Additional Advocate-General Pawan Girdhar.

The bench observed that an alibi must be corroborated with compelling and credible evidence to counter the prosecution’s narrative, particularly in cases with direct eyewitness testimonies. A convict’s mere self-serving statement could not override eyewitness accounts and other incriminating material.

The bench made it clear that the defence was required to present reliable, tangible evidence to demonstrate that the recovery was fabricated, orchestrated, or planted for an alternate version to weaken the prosecution’s stance.

The court emphasised that the defence must show that the disclosure statement and any resultant recovery were forged or fabricated by proving that the alleged discovery did not directly arise from the custodial statement of the accused.

Besides this, the defence was required to convincingly argue that the evidence in question was planted and that the items recovered were readily available in the market, undermining any claim of exclusivity in the accused person’s possession. The court also referred to the necessity for the defence to show that the recovery was not made from a secluded area uniquely within the accused person’s knowledge.

The judgment went on to stipulate strict procedural expectations – the recovered items should have been enclosed in a sealed cloth parcel and sent for forensic analysis, with corroborative evidence from a medical expert linking the item to injuries sustained by the victim. Additionally, the credibility of the witnesses to the recovery must be rigorously challenged. The defence should establish that these witnesses were coerced or tutored by the investigating officer, who might have orchestrated a false recovery within the confines of the police station rather than at the actual crime scene.

Finally, the court emphasised the importance of scrutinising the timeline between the accused person’s disclosure and the recovery. A substantial time gap, the defence could argue, would raise the likelihood that investigators planted the evidence at the alleged recovery site.