news details |
|
|
| Prosecution failure led to acquittal of alleged ISI agent | | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Nov 15 : The failure of prosecution to prove the case led to acquittal of an alleged Pakistan Intelligence Agency agent Tarseem Lal. Principal Sessions Judge Jammu Kartar Singh acquitted the accused ISI agent identified as Tarsem Lal son of Tilak Raj resident of Millain Di Khui, Tehsil Akhnoor.
The prosecution allegations against the accused Tarseem Lal in brief are that on 14. 7.2009 an information was received by the Police Station Nawabad Jammu from the reliable resources that Tarsem Lal is an agent of ISI agency of Pakistan.
He provided them secret information about the vital installations of security forces through E-mail and is busy in spreading militancy related activities in the State.
For the said purpose he used to supply secret information to the Pakistan through E-mail. On this secret information, FIR for the commission of offence falling under section 120-B, 121-A read with section 3 of E.A.O was registered against the accused and investigation ensued.
During investigation, the accused was arrested and from his personal search a telephone diary of BSNL was recovered and some numbers of E-Mail were also recovered from him and from those E-mail numbers, he used to send E- mail messages to the Pakistan from a Cyber Cafe situated at Gandhi Nagar, Jammu.
After investigation, final report was submitted in this court.
Principal Sessions Judge Jammu Kartar Singh after hearing both side, observed that the prosecution has heavily relied upon the recovery of E-mail list from the accused and one fails to understand that how this E-mail list has connected him with the commission of alleged office.
The prosecution has not proved as to from home the accused received the E-mail and to whom he used to send them.
In the absence of such evidence, it cannot be said that E-mails were sent to Pakistan and also E-mail which he received were also from Pakistan.
In other words, there is no even an iota of evidence against the accused and held that the prosecution has failed prove its case beyond reasonable shadow of doubt. The accused is therefore, acquitted of the charges framed against him. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
