Court Rejects Defence Plea Over Delayed Witness Statements

A court in Ramban district of Jammu and Kashmir has sentenced Mohammad Sharief, a militant accused of killing three members of a family in 2005, to two life terms. The court rejected the defence’s argument that discrepancies in prosecution evidence and delays in recording eyewitness statements undermined the case.

The incident took place on the evening of July 27, 2005, when Sharief and another militant, Shabir Ahmed, allegedly entered the house of Rashid Bohra and opened indiscriminate fire. Three family members, including Bohra’s five-month-old grandson, were killed. Bohra and his daughter-in-law, Mashooma Begum, survived but suffered serious injuries.

Sharief was arrested in 2019, while Ahmed, who was never arrested, died in 2006. Principal Sessions Judge Ajay Kumar Gupta sentenced Sharief to life imprisonment for murder and another life term for criminal conspiracy to commit an offence against the state. He was also awarded 10 years of rigorous imprisonment for attempted murder and another 10 years under the Arms Act. All sentences will run concurrently.

Court Highlights Impact of Trauma on Eyewitness Testimony

Rejecting the defence’s objections, the court observed that criminal trials cannot be decided merely by counting minor inconsistencies in witness statements. It said discrepancies concerning peripheral details, such as the sequence of events or exact words spoken, do not necessarily undermine credibility. Greater importance must be given to contradictions affecting the identity of the accused or the core of the incident.

The defence had questioned the delay of one to four months in recording statements of the two injured eyewitnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). However, the court held that the delay was justified by their medical condition and the trauma they experienced.

Rashid had sustained six bullet injuries and remained unconscious for seven days. Mashooma suffered approximately 15–16 bullet injuries and also regained consciousness only after a week.

The court noted that the witnesses had endured severe physical injuries and witnessed the deaths of close family members, including a young child. Their circumstances could not be compared with those of witnesses to ordinary criminal incidents.

It emphasised that the ability of an injured person to provide a detailed police statement must be assessed in light of their physical and mental condition, rather than through a rigid application of technical rules.