Jammu March-11-2024:- Justice Sanjeev Kumar of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court upholds that judgment dated 2nd June, 2009 passed by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Rajouri in case State v. Mohd. Jameel, whereby and whereunder the Mohd. Jameel HM militant has been convicted for commission of offences under Sections 3/25 and 7/25 Arms Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of three years and fine of Rs.2,000/- for commission of an offence under Section 3/25 Arms Act and rigorous imprisonment of five years and fine of Rs.2000/- for commission of an offence under Section 7/25 Arms Act. The judgment impugned further provides that in case of default in payment of fine, the appellant shall further undergo imprisonment for two months more in each case. Both the sentences, however, have been made to run concurrently.
Justice Sanjeev Kumar after hearing both the sides observed that the recovery of arms and ammunition from the possession of the appellant and his arrest by the BSF in the exercise of power conferred upon it under the Special Powers Act, 1990 ultimately became an information with the police to register an FIR and enter upon investigation. The police of Police Station concerned, which took over the investigation, has made seizure memo in respect of seized arms and ammunition under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure which was later on proved before the trial Court by leading evidence by the prosecution. I am, thus, of the considered opinion that the recovery of the arms and ammunition made from the appellant by the Special Operation party of the BSF was not hit by Section 27 of the Evidence Act and, therefore, the trial Court has rightly relied upon the evidence led before it during trial to prove that the recovery of arms and ammunition was indeed made from the possession of the appellant. No plausible explanation has been tendered by the appellant during his examination under Section 342 Cr.P.C.
High Court observed that counsel for the appellant could not point out any major contradiction or discrepancy in the prosecution evidence, which was sufficient to put the recovery of arms and ammunition from the appellant in serious doubt. The findings of fact recorded by the trial Court are in consonance with the evidence on record.
For these reasons, Court found no merit in this appeal, the same is, accordingly, dismissed. The bail bonds of the appellant, who was released on bail by this Court vide order dated 01.10.2010 are forfeited. The appellant shall surrender before the jail authorities for undergoing the remaining period of sentence. JNF