State challenged the acquittal, contending that: The trial court had not properly appreciated evidence
Case Title and Citation
State of J&K through S.H.O. Police Station Mahore vs. Abdul Latif & Ghulam Nabi
CRAA No. 143/2014, decided on 03 September 2025
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Kumar & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Parihar
Background of the Case
The appeal arose from a 2002 incident where Abdul Hameed, a surrendered militant of the HM outfit, was allegedly murdered due to personal enmity linked to a proposed marriage alliance. The State alleged that Abdul Latif and his brother Ghulam Nabi, along with another militant, strangulated Abdul Hameed and concealed his body in the forests of Chakras, Mahore.
A missing report had been filed in 2002, and during investigation of another FIR in 2006, accused Abdul Latif allegedly disclosed the killing, leading to recovery of a skeleton from the jungle. Based on this disclosure, charges under Sections 364/302/201/34 RPC were framed against the accused.
summary
The Division Bench of the Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High Court, Jammu (Sanjay Parihar J. & Sanjeev Kumar J.) dismissed the State’s appeal against acquittal and affirmed the Sessions Court’s judgment acquitting Abdul Latif and Ghulam Nabi of charges arising from the alleged 2002 murder of Abdul Hameed. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt because (i) eyewitness testimony was contradictory and unreliable, (ii) the alleged confession/disclosure made to police was not voluntary and could not be admitted, (iii) the recovery of a skeleton and clothes was not proved reliably and forensic identity (DNA) was not established, and (iv) the circumstances relied on did not form a complete chain pointing only to the accused.
Proceedings Before the Trial Court
The prosecution examined 27 witnesses, including police officials, alleged eyewitnesses, and family members of the deceased. However, the trial court (Sessions Judge, Reasi) noted significant contradictions in the testimonies, lack of corroboration, and doubts over the recovery process.
Key issues included:
Witnesses giving conflicting versions on whether the deceased was kidnapped or voluntarily accompanied the accused.
The alleged disclosure statement being inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Recovery memos prepared belatedly, raising questions of authenticity.
Failure of forensic authorities to establish DNA profiling of the skeleton to conclusively prove identity.
On 26 December 2013, the trial court acquitted both accused, granting them the benefit of doubt.
Grounds of State’s Appeal
The State challenged the acquittal, contending that:
The trial court had not properly appreciated evidence.
Eyewitness testimonies and disclosure statement sufficiently connected the accused with the crime.
The respondents had destroyed evidence by concealing the body.
High Court’s Observations
The High Court carefully re-evaluated the evidence and upheld the trial court’s reasoning:
1. Unreliable Eyewitnesses – Several prosecution witnesses either denied knowledge, gave contradictory versions, or suggested that the deceased voluntarily accompanied the militants.
2. Disclosure Statement Issue – The Court reiterated that a confession to police is inadmissible under Section 25 Evidence Act, and the alleged disclosure was not voluntary, as witnesses confirmed it was obtained under coercion.
3. Weak Recovery Evidence – Recovery of skeleton and clothes was doubtful due to delays, absence of proper seizure memos, and improbability of clothes surviving intact after four years.
4. Failure of Forensic Proof – No DNA test was conducted, and thus the prosecution could not conclusively establish that the skeleton belonged to Abdul Hameed.
5. Circumstantial Evidence Not Complete – The prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances pointing solely to the guilt of the accused.
Legal Principle Reaffirmed
The Court emphasized that in appeals against acquittal, interference is limited. Unless the trial court’s view is perverse or unreasonable, an appellate court must not disturb the acquittal. The presumption of innocence stands reinforced once an accused is acquitted.
Final Judgment
The High Court found no merit in the State’s appeal and dismissed it on 03 September 2025, affirming the acquittal of Abdul Latif and Ghulam Nabi.
Read our other articles on different courts judgments visit our home page
This article cover the report on Jammu and Kashmir high court judgement on acquittal of accused by trial court and legal points, further you can read here important judgements and legal principles laid down by Hon’ble supreme court of India, this article is posted by Advocate Shivaji Rathore (J&K high court jammu) for more important legal topics stay connected with us, on tacit legal we post on YouTube channel also named as Tacit Legal helpful for Law students newely enrolled Advocate in India and other states, Follow us on Instagram also, Read our articles on important Questions of Law. #tacitlegal
