STATE TIMES NEWS
JAMMU: Principal Sessions Judge Kishtwar Bala Joyti acquitted three accused persons namely Abdul Gani, Sher Kahn and Raju allegedly involved in the militancy related activities because of shoddy investigation and lack of better proof. On 8-9th July 2006 they allegedly entered deceased’s Ghulum Din’s house to take revenge that he had helped police/ army personal to arrest militant’s colleague Mohammad Amin to surrender with a costly prohibited gun.
Sessions Judge did not observe that investigating agency got the seized bullet tested in FSL nor seized prohibited arms from accused and not even presented any explanation for not doing this important part of investigation.
Court also noticed the prosecution rather relied on quantity and not quality evidence. The court remarked that “it is settled that graver the charge higher should be proof”.
The statements of star witness Saleema does not appear to be natural. Killers come masking their faces in order to conceal their identity but unmasked in front of Saleema and Akthar.
Principal Sessions Judge Kishtwar further observed that cumulatively read the above statements of witnesses show that statements of all the family members of deceased Ghulam Din examined by the prosecution are full of material contradictions and unexplained discrepancies that cut at the root of the prosecution; these statements exhibit glaring improbabilities as the statements of witness are so lewd that no person of ordinary prudence would accept these statements as truthful; that star prosecution witnesses’ Saleema and Akhtar are self contradictory, improbable and unworthy of belief.
Let it be known that the accused persons are facing a charge which prescribes capital punishment/life imprisonment and the law requires ‘serious the charge, higher the proof’. Investigating Officer has not obtained report of FSL nor is there is any proof regarding the description of the weapon allegedly used in the commission of murder of Ghulam Din. Under such circumstance and view of the prosecution evidence the only inference that can be drawn is that the prosecution has failed to proof charge against the accused persons. They are therefore acquitted from charge under sections 302/34 RPC and 7/27 Arms Act in Case FIR No. 23/2006 Police Station Chatroo. They shall be released forthwith if they or anyone of them is not required in any other non-bailable offence. In view of the faulty prosecution evidence this Court do not deem it necessary to appreciate statements of eight defence witnesses as onus is on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable shadow of doubt. JNF
