Early Times Report
JAMMU, July 18: A Division Bench of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court comprising Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Shahzad Azeem upheld the acquittal of Tajinder Singh and Ravinder Singh an alleged member of K.Z.F., which is controlled by Ranjeet Singh @ Nita group.
The accusations germane lead to the trial of A-1 Tajinder Singh and A-2 Ravinder Singh are that on 24.08.2005, a source information was received by PW-6 Diwakar Singh (SHO Police Station, Gandhi Nagar) that A-1 and A-2 who bore allegiance to militant organization, operating under the name and style of; K.Z.F., which is controlled by Ranjeet Singh @ Nita group and are operating under the diktat of Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence (I.S.I.) with the design and purpose to disturb the peace, tranquility, integrity and sovereignty of the country, and are seducing the youth of Satwari; Gadigarh and Gandhi Nagar, in Jammu to join the K.Z.F., a terrorist organization. The information also said to have been reached that the accused have concealed at some unknown place prohibited arms and ammunition, so as to commit heinous offence(s). On receipt of this information, a case being FIR No. 195/2005 under Sections 121, 121-A, 122, 123, 120-B RPC came to be registered and investigation entrusted to PW-8 Vikas Gorkha (Sub-Inspector). During investigation, the police party of Police Station, Gandhi Nagar in collaboration with police party of Police Station, Satwari arrested the accused during naka laid at Satwari Chowk. During interrogation, A-1 and A-2 said to have made disclosure statements that they have concealed at Sajadpur, prohibited arms and ammunition, namely, AK 56 Rifle, two magazines, containing 99 live cartridges and 30 rolls of explosive substance, namely, RDX near Nikki Tawi in the bushes beneath the earth in a plastic bag. On completion of the investigation, final police report was laid before the competent court and on committal vide order dated 23.05.2007 formal charges for commission of offences under Sections 4/5 ESA, 7/25 Arms Act and 120-B RPC were drawn up against the accused and on their denial, the trial commenced.
While upholding the judgment of trial court, Division Bench observed that it is seen that prosecution case, right from the time of arrest of accused; making of disclosure statements; recovery of alleged arms and ammunition; and seizure and safe custody is marred by contradictions, improbabilities, omissions, discrepancies and even the conduct of the prosecution witnesses, who were none other than the police personnel/officers, is highly unworthy of reliance, as they lacks credibility, so much so, their presence at the relevant point of time do not inspire confidence in the manner, as alleged by the prosecution. In view of the discussion held, Division Bench do not find the impugned judgment, whereby A-1 and A-2 are acquitted, suffers from any perversity or impossibility, calling for interference or warranting any contrary view than the one taken by the trial court.
—JNF |
