In a significant ruling that underscores the necessity of rigorous investigative standards, the Jammu & Kashmir High Court has upheld the acquittal of two accused in a 2005 terror-related arms case. The bench emphasized that their detention and the inscinding of arms from their possession were fraught with procedural irregularities—most notably, the failure to associate civilian witnesses during critical stages of seizure and arrest.
The case revolved around the discovery of a mortar shell and other munitions during a raid in Jammu. The prosecution alleged that the accused, both locals, had received the arms from a terrorist and were awaiting onward dispatch. They were arrested and charged under various sections relating to illegal possession of weapons and terrorist activity. Evidence amassed largely comprised the testimony of police officials involved in the operation and seizure.
On appeal, the High Court closely examined the conduct of the investigation and found it deeply flawed. A central concern was the near-total absence of civilian involvement in formal investigation steps. Despite there being available independent witnesses in the area, the investigation team seemingly relied solely on police officers' statements. This omission created a strong impression that the investigation aimed to control or manufacture evidence rather than document an authentic, transparent encounter. The court expressed that associating civilians is not optional—especially during sensitive seizures of terror-related arms—as their presence provides critical accountability.
Furthermore, the court raised doubts about the reliability of police testimony. Discrepancies in timings, inconsistent descriptions of the arms, and contradictory accounts relating to the precise location of seizure further weakened prosecutorial claims. The High Court observed that when the core evidence hinges on police testimony, its credibility must be unimpeachable. In this case, it was anything but.
The court also highlighted legal safeguards designed to curtail police overreach. In arms and terror-related cases, theory mandates strict adherence to statutory procedures during arrests and seizures. Any deviation—like denying suspects the opportunity for legal counsel or failing to record confessional statements with requisite formalities—breaches fundamental rights and statutes. This case featured several such deviations.
Considering the cumulative procedural failures—from excluding civilian witnesses to shaky officer testimony and deficient documentation—the High Court found that the prosecution had not discharged its burden of proving the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Emphasizing the maxim that “benefit of doubt must go to the accused,” the Court upheld the earlier acquittal.
This ruling reinforces the judiciary’s steadfast commitment to procedural fairness, even in terrorism-related prosecutions. It sends a clear message: investigative zeal cannot eclipse constitutional safeguards and the rule of law. The integrity of democratic justice systems rests on transparency, accountability, and strict adherence to procedure—particularly when liberty and reputation hang in the balance.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.