More than 26 years after a man was fatally shot, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside a trial court’s acquittal and sentenced three Army personnel and another accused to life imprisonment for the murder. The trial court had earlier acquitted the three soldiers and charged Bijender after raising doubts about the prosecution’s evidence.

The trial court accepted the defense’s claim of alibis, relying heavily on army records and the statements of officers who placed Captain Anand, along with Yudhvir Singh and Raj Kumar, in Roorkee on the day of the murder. The court also noted inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case.

The bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma observed that the case dates back to 1998 when the victim Mahender Singh was shot dead. Complainant Ramesh Kumar alleged that earlier there were altercations between Mahender Singh and Raj Kumar’s family during the panchayat elections which resulted in ill will between the parties. The state was represented by Haryana Additional Solicitor General Pawan Girdhar.

The court observed that an alibi must be corroborated with convincing and credible evidence to counter the prosecution’s narrative, especially in cases with direct eyewitness testimony. The mere statement of a convict could not override eyewitness accounts and other incriminating material.

The bench made it clear that the defense had to present reliable and tangible evidence to show that the recovery was fabricated, orchestrated or planted for an alternative version to weaken the prosecution’s case.

The court emphasized that the defense must show that the disclosure statement and any resulting recovery were falsified or fabricated by proving that the alleged discovery did not flow directly from the defendant’s custodial statement.

In addition, the defense was required to convincingly argue that the evidence in question had been planted and that the recovered items were readily available on the market, undermining any claim of exclusivity in the defendant’s possession. The court also referred to the need for the defense to demonstrate that the recovery was not made from a secluded area known only to the accused.

The ruling went on to stipulate strict procedural expectations – recovered items would have had to be enclosed in a sealed cloth package and sent for forensic analysis, with corroborative evidence from a medical expert linking the item to the victim’s injuries. Additionally, the credibility of recovery witnesses must be rigorously challenged. The defense would have to establish that these witnesses were coerced or directed by the investigating officer, who could have orchestrated a false recovery within the confines of the police station rather than at the actual crime scene.

Finally, the court emphasized the importance of examining the time lapse between the accused person’s disclosure and recovery. A substantial time frame, the defense could argue, would increase the likelihood that investigators planted evidence at the alleged recovery site.