Early Times Report
JAMMU, June 29: The Court of Additional Sessions Judge, TADA/POTA, Special Judge designated under NIA Act, Srinagar, has acquitted four persons in the 2022 Bemina UAPA-Arms Act occurrence case, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the alleged recovery of weapons and terror links beyond reasonable doubt.
The judgment was passed by Manjeet Rai in a case arising out of FIR No. 39/2022 of Police Station Bemina, Srinagar, registered under Section 7/25 Arms Act and Sections 18, 20, 23, 38 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act. The accused facing trial were Tawoos Rasool Gada, Saleem Jan Bhat, Sajad Ahmed Marazi and Abdul Hameed Rah, while the fifth accused, Sajad Ahmad Sheikh alias Sajad Gull alias Abu Hamza, was shown as absconding.
As per the prosecution case, the occurrence took place on May 10, 2022, when police claimed that two suspects were apprehended during naka checking at Bemina Chowk/Crossing and Chinese Tokarev pistols, magazines and rounds were allegedly recovered from them. The prosecution further alleged that, on their disclosure, two more accused were apprehended from Hamdaniya Colony, Bemina, with similar recoveries.
The prosecution alleged that the accused were working as OGWs of LeT/TRF on the directions of a PoK-based handler and had collected arms and ammunition to carry out terrorist activities in Srinagar. It also claimed that mobile phones, CDRs and CFSL material connected the accused with the alleged handler.
However, after examining the evidence, the Court found serious flaws in the prosecution story. The Court noted that the alleged pistols were not properly sealed, no specific identification marks were put on them, and several witnesses could not tell which pistol was allegedly recovered from which accused. The Court also noticed contradictions regarding the date of occurrence, preparation of documents, sealing of case property and identification of the accused.
The Court further observed that the prosecution failed to prove a legally reliable chain of custody. It was noticed that the case property was produced in Court in an open and unsealed condition, while no proper independent witness was associated despite availability of civilians and other personnel.
On the UAPA allegations, the Court held that mere allegations of association with a terrorist organisation are not enough unless the prosecution proves intention to further terrorist activities. The Court found no admissible evidence to prove such association or intention. It also observed that the sanction for prosecution under UAPA was not proved in accordance with law.
Holding that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of legal proof, the Court acquitted all four accused of the charges. The Court directed that they be released forthwith if not required in any other case. (JNF) |
