news details |
|
|
| Prosecution fails to prove charges | | CJM Kargil acquits accused facing trial under MVA | |
Early Times Report
Kargil, Mar 22- The accused Mohammed Mustafa son of Mohammed Baqir of Batambas Kargil, who was facing trial under section 353/189 and RPC 179, 189, 190(2) Motor Vehicles Act, since September 27, 2007, was acquitted from the charges.
In his acquittal judgment, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kargil R K Abrol while going through the statement of witnesses and record on the file observed that so far the question of jamming the traffic is concerned there is lot of contradiction in the evidence of witnesses.
According to the prosecution story, the accused Mohammed Mustafa, driver by profession, ignoring the signal of the police cop on duty at Iqbal Bridge parked his vehicle wrongly at the traffic point resulting into jamming of the traffic. When the cop tried to guide the accused driver the accused entered into a scuffle and gave a blow to the cop’s chest and caught hold his collar.
Upon a written report of Constable Zulfikar Ali FIR NO 43 of 2007 was registered in the Police station Kargil against the accused driver and investigations taken up. The statement of the accused was recorded under section 242 Cr PC on October 23, 2007 and a challan was presented in the court of law. The contents of the charges were read over and explained to the accused, who preferred to face the trial.
The prosecution evidence was closed by the Court on January 28, 2009 while the defence statement of the accused was recorded on March 7, 2009 wherein the accused did not choose to project defence witnesses and thus the case came up directly for final arguments.
After hearing arguments from both the sides, the CJM observed the prosecution case revolves round the story that the accused by violating the traffic signal tried to enter his vehicle on the wrong side resulting into a successful between the complainant constable and the accused driver. The prosecution recorded only four witnesses and so far the question of jamming of traffic is concerned there is lot of contradiction in the evidence of witnesses. It is strange to obscure from the statement of prosecution witness Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din SI that no one came on the spot of occurrence when many vehicles were stranded there and had not seen the whole occurrence. His evidence seems not to be trust worthy, reliable and confidence inspiring the CJM observed. The CJM further observed that the evidence of Zulfikar Ali too is not inspiring, reliable and trustworthy as the accused , driver by profession, can not dare to give a blow to the constable and catch hold his collar while sitting in the vehicle that too when the engine was on, as has been disclosed by almost all the witnesses. He further observed that during this scuffle no civil witnesses who had assembled on the spot did subscribe to the allegations of the complainant as such the prosecution fails to prove the charges against the accused. Dismissing the case, the CJM observed that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges as the investigating officer has not arrayed the civil witnesses present on spot in the case and more so the evidence of IO main keenly observed goes against the prosecution case. The prosecution also failed to link the accused with the commission of offences under section 179,190(2) of MVA. It has also failed to prove that the accused ever prevented the complainant from discharging his duties as constable deployed at the spot for controlling traffic. There are apparent contradiction and discrepancies in the evidence and does not corroborate. After going through all the relevant documents and witnesses the CJM dismissed the prosecution case and acquitted the accused driver from the charges leveled against him.
The state was represented in this case by the Public Prosecutor while Advocate Amir represented the accused.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
