A court in Jammu and Kashmir’s Ramban district has sentenced Mohammad Sharief to two life terms for his role in the killing of three members of a family in 2005, rejecting the defence argument that inconsistencies and delays in eyewitness statements weakened the prosecution’s case.
Ramban Principal Sessions Judge Ajay Kumar Gupta said criminal trials could not be decided simply by counting discrepancies in witness accounts, noting that people could not be expected to recall an incident with photographic precision.
Sharief and another militant, Shabir Ahmed, were accused of entering the house of Rashid Bohra on the evening of July 27, 2005, and opening fire. Three members of the family, including Bohra’s five-month-old grandson, were killed. Bohra and his daughter-in-law, Mashooma Begum, survived despite suffering serious gunshot injuries.
Sharief was arrested in 2019. Ahmed, who was never arrested, died in 2006.
The court awarded Sharief one life term for murder and another for criminal conspiracy to commit an offence against the state. It also sentenced him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment for attempted murder and another 10 years under the Arms Act. All the sentences will run concurrently.
Rejecting the defence plea for acquittal, the judge said contradictions in witness accounts had to be assessed according to their significance. Discrepancies concerning the identity of the assailant, the central events or a witness’s presence could affect credibility, he said, while differences over the sequence of events, positions or peripheral details could arise naturally over time.
The defence had also questioned the prosecution’s case because the statements of two injured eyewitnesses were recorded one to four months after the incident.
The court rejected this argument, holding that the delay had to be considered in light of the victims’ medical condition and the severity of their injuries.
It said the delay in recording the statements of Bohra and Mashooma Begum was supported by medical evidence and other records. Bohra had been hit by six AK-47 bullets and was unable to speak when neighbours arrived to help him. He was taken to Jammu for emergency treatment and remained unconscious for seven days, the court said.
Mashooma Begum had suffered around 15 to 16 gunshot injuries and was unconscious at the scene. She was also taken to Jammu for treatment and regained consciousness after about a week, according to the court.
The judge said the delay could not be viewed in isolation from the physical and psychological trauma suffered by the injured witnesses.
Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which governs police examination of witnesses, requires a person to be in a condition to give an account of what they witnessed, the court observed.
The judge rejected the suggestion that the witnesses had remained silent for months before naming the accused, saying the prosecution’s case could not be equated with one in which a physically fit witness deliberately withheld information.
The court also stressed the circumstances facing Mashooma Begum, who had lost her sister-in-law, mother-in-law and young child in the shooting.
Her testimony, the judge said, had to be assessed in the context of the severe injuries she sustained and the deaths she witnessed.
The court concluded that the delay in recording the injured witnesses’ statements was adequately explained by their medical condition and the circumstances of the attack.
This article was prepared with AI assistance and is based on information available in the public domain.
