J&K: High Court Overturns Man’s Life Sentence In 22-Year-Old Double Rape-Murder Case

The court overturned a December 2016 conviction by a trial court that had relied heavily on circumstantial evidence and 'flawed investigation'.

Srinagar:More than two decades after being sentenced to life imprisonment for the rape and murder of two minor sisters, Kamal Jeet Singh, also known as Rinku, has been acquitted by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. The verdict overturned a December 2016 conviction by a trial court that had relied heavily on circumstantial evidence and flawed investigation, according to the HC's Division bench.

The two-judge bench, comprising justices Atul Sreedharan and Javed Iqbal Wani, directed Singh's immediate release from custody, citing “serious procedural and evidentiary lapses” in the original trial. The court stated that the prosecution's case against Singh was built on “a bundle of contradictions, omissions, speculations, and conjectures,” failing to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The case dates back to October 2002, when the bodies of two sisters, aged six and three, were found in a locked house belonging to a migrant relative of Singh in the Beerwah area of Budgam district. The girls had been throttled and raped, according to the postmortem report. Days after the double murders, Singh, a bus conductor, was taken into custody on suspicion and later he confessed to the crime, according to the police.

On December 10, 2016, Principal Sessions Judge Budgam convicted Singh under various sections, including 342, 376 and 302 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC), sentencing him to life imprisonment and imposing fines of Rs 75,000 for the heinous crimes. However, the high court's detailed judgment highlighted significant gaps in the investigation and prosecution's evidence.

The court raised several red flags about the original investigation. Witness testimony revealed discrepancies regarding Singh's arrest date. A constable testified that Singh was detained before the victims' bodies were even discovered, contradicting official records. It also found Singh's alleged confession, made to the police and reportedly to family members, “inadmissible” as it was not supported by any independent witnesses.

Furthermore, forensic evidence, including hair samples found at the crime scene, was described as speculative by the court. The prosecution had argued that the samples “could be” Singh's, but this finding lacked scientific conclusiveness. The steel glass presented as a key piece of evidence—bearing inscriptions linked to the accused's family—was also unproven in terms of ownership. Additionally, the prosecution's reliance on mustard oil allegedly used in the crime was undermined by the lack of forensic analysis and mishandling of key exhibits.

The court emphasized that the police investigation was riddled with negligence, describing it as “unprofessional and amateurish.” The judgment further noted that alternative suspects were not adequately investigated, including Singh’s brother, who was initially implicated but released without thorough examination.

“This was an act done by an animal masquerading as a human,” the bench wrote in its judgment. “However, shocking as the crime may be, the judiciary has to ensure that the conviction is based on solid evidence and not conjecture.”

Highlighting the procedural flaws, the bench stated, “The prosecution's case against the appellant is nothing more than a bundle of contradictions, omissions, speculations, and conjectures, and it has miserably failed to prove the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.” In its final order pronounced on December 20, the High Court acquitted Singh of all charges, setting aside the 2016 judgment and sentence and ordered that “he shall be released forthwith.”

Read More