news details |
|
|
| Raghunath Temple attack case | | Court discharges six accused, passes strictures against IO | |
Jammu, October, 30
Principal Sessions Judge Jammu Mr. Subhash Chander Gupta today discharged six accused facing trail in much publicized Fidayeen attack in the Raghunath Bazaar and Raghunath Temple on March 30, 2002 at the stage of framing charge in which several innocents lost their lives whereas two militants were also killed.
According to the Challan, in a Fidayeen attack in most popular temple of Jammu city known as Raghunath Temple on March 30, 2002, two armed militants hurled grenades while passing through Raghunath Bazaar and caused damage to the adjoining shops and standing vehicles and thereafter entered in the Temple at about 10:00 AM and restored indiscriminate firing which resulted in the killing of may devotees and injuries to others. As per the police report both the militants were killed in an encounter with the police/security forces. A case u/s 302/307/120-B, 153-A, 121-A RPC and section 2/3 of Prevention and Suppression of Sabotage Act, Section of 3 of Prevention of Terrorism Act was registered. During the course of investigation, DSP (SDPO City East Jammu) informed the IO of this case on November 16, 2002 that the accused persons arrested in another case pertaining to Rajiv Nagar massacre in July, 2002, hatched a conspiracy at Surankote to carry out the attacks in Jammu. On the information, police arrested all the accused persons namely Mehmood Ahmed s/o Ghulam Ahmed r/o Lathong, Maroof Khan s/o Attaullah Khan r/o Mohra Bachhai, Sarfraz Khan s/o Attaullah Khan r/o Mohra Bachhai, Kabir Din s/o Aziz Din r/o Lathong and Munir Hussain Khan s/o Dilawar Khan r/o Samote, Shabir Ahmed s/o Khadam Hussain r/o Mohra Bachhai , all from Tehsil Surankote in the FIR 20/2002 of P/S City. Accused remained in custody for a considerable period of time and subsequently detained under Public Safety Act for two years. On the expiry of PSA, they were again arrested in the present case. Police failed to file the charge sheet against the accused persons within the stipulated period and accused were released on bail on different dates in 2005. Till the finalization of case, section 3 of Enemy Agent Ordinance was not there, however, finally police deleted the offence u/s 3 POTA, 153-A and 121-A RPC and produced the challan u/s 302/307/120-B RPC 2/3 PSS Act and 3 EAO in the court on September 14, 2006.
It is also mentioned in the challan that accused persons entered into a conspiracy with the killed militants (main accused) at Unique Hotel in Surankote to carry out attacks at different places at Jammu and at the instance of accused Kabir-ud-Din, accused Mahroof Ahmed along with accused Mehmood, arranged shifting of two militants and two bags of arms and ammunition in truck No 4167/JKS from Surankote to Jammu on March 29, 2002 and they along with two militants stayed in the truck at Transport Nagar for the night and accused Sarfraz kept on waiting for them at the house of Muneer Hussain at Rajiv Nagar Jammu, where the militants were provided food, shelter and other assistance in carrying out the attacks. It is worthwhile to mention here that accused Shabir Ahmed, who was a surrendered militant and working as SPO in the police arranged Identity cards for the militants.
While discharging the six accused facing trial in much publicized Fidayeen attack in the Raghunath Bazaar and Raghunath Temple, Principal Sessions Judge after hearing Public Prosecutor Mr. E A Tak appearing for the state and Advocate BR Gupta appearing for the accused persons, observed that there are 84 witnesses in support of the charge-sheet, of which 67 prosecution witnesses are alleged eye-witnesses. All these alleged eye-witnesses have deposed about the occurrence which pertains to the attack at Raghunath Bazaar and Raghunath Temple implicated only two unidentified militants who were killed in the encounter, there is not an iota of evidence in their statements against the present accused as none of these witnesses named any of the accused except stating about the two killed militants. The evidence of Inspector Toll Post Manda Akhnoor which demonstrates the passing of truck No 4167-JKS states that the truck was empty and it does not speak a fig even about carrying of any persons or arms and ammunition in the truck on the date of its checking.
The Judge further referred to the statement of four witnesses namely Nazir Ahmed ASI, Deepak Raina Inspector, Faqir Chand SGC and Mohd Aslam Constable, all are police personnel and their statements speak about the arrest of one Virinder Sharma s/o Vishal Sharma and about the disclosure statement made by said Virinder Sharma and recovery of huge quantity of arms and ammunition but their statements no where show association of present accused with Virinder Sharma and do not implicate present accused in their statements, rather it is Virinder Sharma who as per the statement of these witnesses is the person indulging in the smuggling of arms and ammunitions. But is baffling to find the name of Virinder Sharma in the list of the accused in the present challan for the reasons best known to investigating agency. The police could not prove the offence of Enemy Agent Ordinance against the accused persons and also did not prove 2/3 Prevention and Suppression of Sabotage Act. As such there is absolutely no evidence against the accused persons to frame charges. Report submitted u/s 173 CrPC seems to have been prepared in air, not based on any slightest supporting evidence, and speaks about the casual manner in which the investigating officer with having slightest regard to the liberty of the persons, not only the IO but also the authorities who passed the challan, has conducted the investigation. The then SSP Jammu seems to have acted as a rubber stamp without caring and bothering to go through the statement of any of the witnesses cited in the list of witnesses in the challan. Had the authorities passing the challan perused any of the statements of the witnesses recorded u/s 161 CrPC, the present challan would not have find its place, which reflects adversely on the working of the investigating agency and the officer supervising the investigation and police seems to have passed on the liability by submitting the challan to the court, which tendency is required to be deprecated, the court observed. With these observations the court discharged the accused from the offences leveled against them at the stage of framing charges.
While announcing the judgment, the Judge further observed that Court found sufficient material in the file, in the statements of Inspector Deepak Raina, Nazir Ahmed ASI, Faqir Chand SGC and Mohd Aslam Constable as well as from the case dairy dated April 14, 2002 about the arrest of Virinder Sharma and about his disclosure and recovery of huge quantity of arms and ammunitions made from him on such disclosure at his instance but it is astonishing to find that he had not at all been arrayed as accused in the present case. The Judge ordered issuing of notice to investigating officer to show cause why he has not arrayed Virinder Sharma, as one of the accused in the case and send a copy of this order to the Director General of Police for information. JNF
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
