Sixth acquittal for Doda ‘militant’ as police case fails witness test again

An acquittal on this ground means the prosecution could not present trustworthy evidence matching its allegation. Police claimed Nabi and Khursheed Ahmed opened fire on a search party in Marmat in 2009, killing SPO Mohammad Ashraf. But witnesses did not confirm that account in court. Several search-party members said officers instructed them which names to mention.

The problem went beyond silence. One witness said the rifle shown as seized from the accused had already been shown as seized in other FIRs. The postmortem doctor also said Nabi’s wounds suggested shooting from about six metres, not indiscriminate cross-fire. These contradictions weakened the investigation and the prosecution’s story.

Judge Archana Charak said investigation lapses alone do not always require acquittal. Here, however, the evidence had material contradictions and no reliable corroboration. The court therefore gave both accused the benefit of reasonable doubt rather than treating the police version as proven.

Six cases involving Ghulam Nabi have ended in acquittal, according to advocate Asim Hashmi, who assisted the court as amicus curiae. The cases cover a long period. The earliest case described began with an FIR lodged on August 6, 1999, over the killing of Shakeel Ahmed.

The article also gives a separate custody timeline. Nabi’s wife said he was first arrested in Dehradun 16 years ago, when he was about 35 and working as a labourer. The source does not say that he was continuously held throughout the entire period. It does say he was last brought home for an hour in 2025, after his mother died.

Thus, the clearest answer is six acquittals involving cases dating from 1999 through the 2025 proceedings. His connection with police cases and custody has stretched for many years, but the article does not establish uninterrupted detention across that whole period.

The latest acquittal concerned an alleged militant attack in the forests of Marmat, Doda district, in 2009. Police identified Ghulam Nabi as a self-styled divisional commander of the Hizbul Mujahideen and alleged that he and Khursheed Ahmed were associates. They were accused of opening fire at a police search party.

According to the police version, the firing killed Special Police Officer Mohammad Ashraf. The prosecution relied partly on members of that search party as witnesses. However, those witnesses did not support the police account in court. Some said officers had instructed them which names to take, and one challenged the claimed seizure of a rifle.

Medical evidence also complicated the accusation. The postmortem doctor said Nabi had three bullet wounds and had been shot from about six metres. The doctor said it did not seem to be indiscriminate cross-fire. The judge found contradictions and no reliable corroboration, so both accused were acquitted.

Criminal courts need evidence that can be tested, not merely allegations recorded during an investigation. If a witness refuses to confirm a police statement, the prosecution may lose direct evidence linking the accused to the act. The court can then question what the witness actually saw, said, or knows firsthand.

An allegation of tutoring creates a further reliability problem. In Nabi’s cases, witnesses said police told them what to repeat or which names to mention. Shakeel Ahmed’s mother-in-law said her statement was tutored by police, while Sadiq Ali’s wife said her statement was recorded much later and that she was told what to repeat. Such testimony can undermine the prosecution’s narrative.

The impact depends on the rest of the evidence. A case might still succeed with strong independent proof, such as reliable forensic or documentary evidence. Here, the judge found material contradictions and no reliable corroboration. The witnesses’ evidence therefore weakened the prosecution rather than confirming its version.

The benefit of reasonable doubt is a safeguard against conviction on uncertain or unreliable evidence. It does not require the court to accept every imaginable doubt. It requires acquittal when the evidence, after careful examination, leaves a genuine and reasonable uncertainty about whether the accused committed the offence.

Judge Archana Charak said the prosecution evidence in this case contained material contradictions and lacked reliable corroboration. Search-party witnesses did not support the police version. Some alleged that officers instructed them what names to take. A witness also questioned the claimed rifle seizure, while the doctor’s account raised doubts about the alleged cross-fire.

The judge stressed that it was not enough to show that Nabi and Ahmed might have been involved, or that the prosecution story was one possible explanation. The evidence had to demonstrate guilt. Because it did not reach that standard, the court said the doubt necessarily went to the accused and acquitted both men.

Safeguards are meant to show that evidence was collected lawfully, preserved accurately, and presented without manipulation. Police should record when, where, and from whom an item was seized. Independent witnesses, photographs, inventories, forensic testing, and an unbroken chain of custody help establish that the item shown in court is the same item recovered.

Witness statements should be recorded promptly and accurately, without coaching. Courts then test them through questioning, comparison with earlier statements, and checks against medical or forensic evidence. These procedures matter because memory can change and investigative pressure can distort accounts. The article does not list every safeguard, but it reports allegations affecting several of them.

In Nabi’s case, a witness said the rifle had been shown as seized in other FIRs. Other witnesses alleged police instructed them what names to mention. Such claims do not automatically prove misconduct, but they create serious reliability concerns. Independent documentation and verification can prevent those concerns from deciding a case.

The prosecution’s burden is to establish every necessary part of the alleged crime through reliable evidence. “Beyond reasonable doubt” does not mean absolute certainty, but it requires much more than suspicion or a theory that could be true. The evidence must make guilt the convincing conclusion after competing explanations are considered.

Showing that an accused might have been involved falls far short. In the Marmat case, the police account linked Nabi and Khursheed Ahmed to the shooting of SPO Mohammad Ashraf. Yet search-party witnesses did not confirm it. The doctor’s evidence also questioned whether the injuries resulted from indiscriminate cross-fire, and a witness challenged the rifle seizure.

Judge Charak expressly said the prosecution had not demonstrated guilt merely by showing that the accused might have been involved or that its account was one possible explanation. Because the evidence contained material contradictions and lacked reliable corroboration, reasonable doubt remained. The court therefore acquitted both accused.