early timse report
Jammu, Dec 22: In a major setback to the prosecution, the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar, Anjum Ara, has acquitted three accused in the 2016 Safa Kadal Police Station stone-pelting case (FIR No. 101/2016), holding that the evidence was weak, inconsistent and unreliable, and that the prosecution failed to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt.
The accused who have been acquitted are Tariq Ahmad Shah, Haji Bashir Ahmad Bhat and Riyaz Ahmad Bhat, all residents of Malik Sahib, Safa Kadal.
As per the prosecution story, on the evening of August 2, 2016, a group allegedly led by certain persons and armed with sticks, stones and bricks pelted stones at the Police Station Safa Kadal, smashing window panes and causing serious injuries to Head Constable Manzoor Ahmad.
However, after evaluating the testimonies of police witnesses, the court recorded that the incident allegedly involved a large mob (about 200 persons) and yet none of the witnesses attributed any specific overt act to any particular accused. The court also noted that no Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted during investigation, and witnesses took inconsistent stands during trial—some admitted they could not identify anyone, while others claimed identification through photographs, which the court found legally impermissible in the absence of TIP.
The court further observed that several witnesses admitted the mob members were wearing masks, making proper identification difficult, and that nobody was arrested on the spot, with arrests being made much later without reliable identification.
A key observation was also made regarding the investigation claim of identification through a video, as the court noted that the investigating officer admitted the video was not made part of the challan and was not available in the police station, further denting the prosecution version.
Stressing that in mob-violence cases the law requires clear and trustworthy evidence establishing the presence and specific role of each accused, the court held that such essential proof was conspicuously absent, and that the benefit of serious doubt must go to the accused. (PTI) |
