Jammu June-08-2023:- Justice MA Chowdhary upholds acquittal of LeT militants and dismisses the appeal filed by UT.
Justice MA Chowdhary while upholding the judgment of trial court, observed that the story of the prosecution otherwise seems to be unreliable in view of the fact that the seven persons allegedly involved in terrorist activities and as alleged by the police to be members of Laskhar-e-Taiba a dreaded organization were sitting like ducks at a public place in Wildlife Sanctuary at Manda waiting for the police to be arrested without any reaction and despite availability of the weapon/explosives they had not used them to retaliate while being arrested by the police. The police had initially registered the case for the commission of the offences against the State invoking the sedition charges, however, later before filing of the chargesheet those offences were dropped and the chargesheet was laid against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Arms Act and Explosive Substances Act only. Since most of the prosecution witnesses have failed to identify any of the accused in the court while being examined and the recovery from the possession of the accused of the pistol and the grenades was also doubtful and no independent witness despite availability, was associated with the process of recovery and seizure, the trial court by a very reasoned judgment has held that the prosecution had failed to prove the case to bring home the charge against any of the accused.
Court further observedthat prosecution, in the case on hand, has not only failed to produce on record any statement/certificate from any ballistic expert or any expert from FSL to prove that the seized grenades and the pistol had been sent for ballistic examination by the experts. This is also a serious infirmity to be taken into consideration, as in such a situation, the offences of which the accused were alleged to have committed cannot be said to have been proved. The weapon and explosives, claimed to have been recovered from the accused/respondents, were neither marked on spot, nor sealed, not sent to any Ballistic Expert to examine whether weapon was in working condition or the explosives were live. In absence of these factors, it cannot be said that weapons/explosives were seized and recovered. For the foregoing reasons and the observations made hereinabove, it is held that prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt to bring home the charge against the accused for the commission of any of the offences of which the accused had been charged. The impugned judgment, being reasoned on sound legal grounds, does not require any interference by this court while deciding the matter invoking the appellate jurisdiction. The trial court has accepted the view which could be taken on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution. The impugned judgment is, thus, upheld. As a result, the acquittal appeal is dismissed.
The impugned judgment whereby respondents were acquitted of the
charges framed against them has been assailed on the grounds that the respondents who were active members of a militant organization namely Lashkar-e-Taiba, at the behest of Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) Agency were bent upon to create unrest in the State of Jammu & Kashmir and had been indulging in the acts of sabotage and terrorist activities to dislodge the State of Jammu & Kashmir and Central Governments; that the prosecution had proved the case against the respondents that they had been found sitting and engaged in making of a conspiracy at Manda forests on 28.08.2004 and during search two chinese grenades were recovered from respondent Mohd. Bashir, one pistol from Mohd. Shafi, one live hand grenade from Javed Ahmed, one chinese grenade from Abdul Rehman, two Chinese grenades from Abdul Rashid besides one letter written in Urdu by District Commander of Lashkar-e-Taiba and a letter pad of the said organization were recovered from their possession; that the impugned judgment is contrary to law, against the facts of the case and passed in a mechanical manner without appreciating the circumstantial evidence as well as the other evidence on record despite there being sufficient evidence to connect the respondents with the commission of the offences. As such, the judgment on all these counts was bad in the eyes of law and liable to be set-aside. It was prayed to allow the appeal, set-aside the impugned judgment and respondents be convicted and sentenced in accordance with law. JNF