Early Times Report
Jammu, Dec 12 : In a criminal appeal against the judgment of special judge anti-corruption, Jammu, whereby he had awarded two years imprisonment to two cops in 2003, high court judge Tashi Rabstan has set aside their conviction and sentence and acquitted them of the charges after 22 years of investigation and trial. Cops - Abdul Rashid and Ramesh Kumar - were posted at police post, Thatri, when they were deputed for patrolling duty on March 23, 1994. In the meanwhile, a complaint filed by one Paryog Singh, son of Faqir Singh of Gagrani, Bhela, for enquiry against Parven Singh, son of Dharam Singh. The appellants took Parven in custody and allegedly harassed him. The cops later allegedly demanded a bribe of Rs 1,000 to free him. The dea was, however, settled at Rs 500. On the complaint of SSP, Doda, VOJ had registered a case in this regard in 1994. After hearing the two sides, Justice Tashi said criminal trial 'is not a fairy tale in which one is free to give flight to one's imagination and fantasy. Crime is an event in real life and is a product of an interplay between different human emotions. In arriving at a conclusion about the guilt of accused, the court has to judge the evidence by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic worth and the animus of witnesses. Every case, in the final analysis, would have to depend upon its own facts. The court must bear in mind that human nature is too willing, when faced with brutal crimes, to spin stories out of strong suspicions. Though an offence may be gruesome and revolt the human conscience, an accused can be convicted only on legal evidence and not on surmises and conjectures. The law does not permit the court to punish accused on the basis of a moral conviction or suspicion alone.' "The burden of proof in a criminal trial never shifts and it is always the burden of prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence. In fact, it is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the more serious the offence, the stricter the degree of proof required, since a higher degree of assurance is required to convict the accused. The fact that the offence was committed in a very cruel and revolting manner may in itself be a reason for scrutinizing the evidence more closely, lest the shocking nature of the crime induce an instinctive reaction against dispassionate judicial scrutiny of the facts and law," he observed. With these observations, the court acquitted the accused from the charges levelled against him. (JNF) |
