JK And Ladakh HC Upholds Acquittal Of BSF Personnel In Army Patrol Firing Case

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently upheld the acquittal of Border Security Force (BSF) personnel accused in the controversial Army patrol firing case that occurred during the Kargil War on July 16/17, 1999.

The court observed that there was no evidence to establish that the respondents deliberately fired upon the Army patrol party. A bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar and Justice Rajesh Sekhri stated that the respondents were implicated based on mere suspicion.

The appeal before the High Court challenged the judgment of the Sessions Court, which had cleared the respondents of charges under Sections 302/307/34 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC).

The prosecution’s case centered around an incident where BSF personnel allegedly opened fire on an army patrol party, resulting in the death of three Army personnel and grievous injuries to another soldier. However, the court found discrepancies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, including the injured soldier, Sepoy Keshav Singh. The testimonial potency of the injured witness was deemed inconsistent on material factual aspects and lacked corroboration.

The court noted that the prosecution failed to establish a motive for the alleged attack and that the witnesses’ testimonies were contradictory. Additionally, the prosecution’s case relied on circumstantial evidence and lacked concrete proof linking the defendants to the crime.

During the analysis of the evidence, the court found that the prosecution’s star witness’s testimony lacked corroboration and was falsified on crucial points. The court also considered the fact that the incident occurred during the Kargil War, where coordination between forces and restricted movement were crucial. The lack of coordination between the Indian Army and the BSF during the incident, amidst rain, thunderstorm, and firing from across the border, resulted in casualties.

Based on these findings, the High Court concluded that suspicion alone cannot replace legal proof, and conviction cannot be sustained solely based on surmises and conjectures. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the acquittal of the BSF personnel.