EARLY TIMES REPORT
JAMMU, Dec 2 (JNF): Principal Sessions Judge Poonch Jaffer Hussain Beigh has acquitted Ramzan Joo, son of Rusal Joo, Khawaja Ghulam Mohd, Parvez Ahmed, son of Abdul Aziz and Abdul Majied, son of Mahad Mir alleged militants involved in Fidayeen attack at Kamsar Army Camp as prosecution failed and issued general arrest warrants against Ahmed Din Code AD, son of Gufar Joo, Mohd Mushtaq, son of Ghulam Rasool Beg and Mohd Farooq, son of Abdul Ahad Beig, all residents of village Seri Khawaja Tehsil Haveli, District Poonch.
According to police case that Police Station Poonch received a letter on 4th day of September 2003 from Headquarter 33 Brigade C/O 56 APO for lodging the FIR with the contents that on that day at about 0430 hours terrorists, Fidayeen attempted to enter the Kamsar Army Camp, were detected by the sentries who fired upon them but the terrorists tried to take shelter in the nearby house, were resisted by a lady on which the terrorists resorted to indiscriminate firing resulted into killing of Zaheeda Parveen and injuring three persons namely Nazia Parveen, Farzana Kouser and Mohd Irfan and then terrorists approached the army camp from the rear and attempted to enter by lobbying hand grenade and bringing heavy volume of fire. The sentries and QET brought down effective fire, lasted near about one hour, resulted in the killing of both the terrorists. No casualty was suffered by Army troops. The terrorists were dressed in combat dress with army boots. Two AK47 rifles, 14 AK magazines, 7 hand grenades, Indian Currency worth Rs.500/- along with 310 rounds of AK were recovered from their possession.
On this letter FIR No.124/2003 for commission of offence u/Ss 302, 307, 120-B, 121, 122, 123, RPC and 7/25, 26/27 Arms Act was registered where after the police started investigation. During the course of investigation police went on spot, seized the dead body of the two militants and of Zahida Parveen. All these dead bodies were sent to hospital for postmortem. The injured Ferhan, Farzana and Nazia were also shifted to hospital for medical examination. Arms and ammunitions along with truck was seized. After completion of the investigation offence u/Ss 302,307,120-B,121,121-A, 122, 123,212 RPC, and 7/25, 26/27 Arms Act were established against the accused Jameel Ahmed, Farooq Ahmed, Ramzan Joo, Ahmed Din, Ghulam Mohd, Pervez Ahmed, Abdul Majid, Mohd Mushtaq, Mohd Farooq, Zahid Ahmed and Ahmed Joo and also against two other accused persons who were killed during the occurrence.
After committal of the case by the learned CJM Poonch the case was received by this court for trial. During the course of trial the accused Ahmed Din, Mohd Mushtaq, Mohd Farooq absconded so proceedings u/s 512 CrPC were initiated against them. The accused Zahid Ahmed was also declared juvenile for which the prosecution was directed to present the separate challan against him. Else the accused Ahmed Joo also died during the proceedings of the case as a result of which prosecution abates against him.
After hearing both the sides, Principal Sessions Judge Poonch Jaffer Hussain Beigh observed that it is the settled principle of Law that the recovery of material object on disclosure by accused does not connect the accused with crime unless close link between the material object discovered and its use in commission of offence has been proved. In my opinion, clothes are not the material object for commission of the offences punishable u/s 302 or 307 RPC.
It is the arm and the ammunition which is material, as per the prosecution version, have been used for the commission of offences in the instant case and held that when there is neither direct nor indirect evidence against the present accused namely Ramzan Joo, Khawaja Ghulam Mohd, Pervez Ahmed and Abdul Majid, means that there is no evidence adduced by the prosecution in order to connect them with the commission of the crime. Not only this Court can even say that there is absolutely no evidence on the file so that the present accused can be asked to enter upon their defence. The prosecution case does not stand proved against the said accused and are acquitted. |
