Jammu & Kashmir court gives militant two life sentences for 2005 family massacre

A Jammu and Kashmir Sessions Court in Ramban handed militant Mohammad Sharief two life imprisonments for the 2005 shooting that killed three members of Rashid Bohra’s family, including a five‑month‑old infant. The judge also ordered ten years of rigorous imprisonment for attempted murder and another ten years under the Arms Act, all to run at the same time. Sharief and fellow militant Shabir Ahmed entered Bohra’s house on the evening of July 27, 2005, and opened fire indiscriminately. Rashid Bohra and his daughter‑in‑law Mashooma Begum survived but were severely wounded; three relatives, among them the infant grandson, died on the spot. Sharief was taken into custody in 2019; Ahmed was never captured and died in 2006. Principal Sessions Judge Ajay Kumar Gupta dismissed the defence’s request to acquit on the basis of minor inconsistencies in witness statements, noting that human recollection cannot match a photograph and that only contradictions about core facts affect credibility. The court also rejected the argument that a one‑ to four‑month gap in recording the statements of Rashid and Mashooma was unlawful. It explained that Rashid was shot six times, remained unconscious for seven days, and could not speak, while Mashooma suffered around fifteen bullet wounds, was unconscious for a week, and only later regained consciousness to give her account. Section 161 of the CrPC requires a witness to be physically and mentally able to describe events, a condition the victims could not meet immediately after the attack. The judge emphasized that the prosecution case does not rely on a calm, uninjured village resident who withheld names for a month, but on survivors who endured extreme trauma.

Context

The court’s stance reflects a broader legal understanding that delays in taking statements from victims of severe violence are often justified, especially when injuries prevent immediate testimony. Indian criminal law under Section 161 allows flexibility when witnesses lack the capacity to speak due to medical conditions. This approach aims to balance procedural rigor with the realities of terror‑related assaults.