Early Times Report
JAMMU, June 8: Justice MA Chowdhary, while upholding the judgment of the trial court, questions the reliability of the prosecution's story in the case involving seven individuals accused of terrorist activities as members of Lashkar-e-Taiba. The judge highlights that the accused were arrested without any resistance at a public place in the Wildlife Sanctuary at Manda, despite allegedly being armed. The charges initially invoked against the accused, including sedition, were later dropped, and they were charged under the Arms Act and Explosive Substances Act only. The prosecution witnesses' failure to identify the accused in court and doubts regarding the recovery of weapons and explosives, as well as the absence of independent witnesses during the process, led the trial court to conclude that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The court also notes that the prosecution did not present any statements or certificates from ballistic experts or forensic experts to establish that the seized weapons and explosives were examined. This omission raises serious concerns about the alleged offenses and their proof. The weapons and explosives, claimed to have been recovered from the accused, were not marked, sealed, or sent for examination by ballistic experts. In light of these factors, it cannot be concluded that the weapons and explosives were properly seized and recovered. Based on these observations, the appellate court upholds the trial court's reasoned judgment, stating that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The appeal for acquittal is dismissed. The appeal challenges the judgment on the grounds that the respondents, as active members of Lashkar-e-Taiba, were involved in creating unrest in Jammu & Kashmir at the behest of Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) agency. It is argued that the prosecution had presented evidence of the respondents' involvement in a conspiracy at Manda forests, including the recovery of grenades, a pistol, and incriminating documents. The appellant contends that the impugned judgment disregards the circumstantial and other evidence, despite its sufficiency to establish the respondents' connection to the offenses. The appeal seeks to set aside the judgment and requests the conviction and sentencing of the respondents in accordance with the law |
