Images News Netwok

Two persons convicted for carrying out acid attack on girl in 2015

Decrease Font Size Increase Font Size Text Size Print This Page

Srinagar: The Principal and District Session judge here convicted two young people for carrying out an acid attack on a college girl in Nowshera area of the city outskirts in March 2015.

Jawad Ahmed, the Principal Sessions Judge Srinagar, held Irshad Amin Wani alias Sunny, son of Mohammed Amin Wani, resident of Wazirbagh, Srinagar, and his co-accused  Mohammed Umar Noor, son of Noor Mohammed Dar of Bemina, guilty of offences punishable under Sections 326-A RPC (punishment for acid attack), 201 & 120-B RPC (punishment of criminal conspiracy).

“Accordingly, the accused persons are convicted for the offences punishable under sections 326-A, 201 & 120-B RPC” decided the judge.

The court found that the prosecution has been able to establish the charges against the accused persons beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt. “As such, this charge-sheet is accepted and the accused persons — Irshad Amin Wani (Accused No.1) and Mohammed Umer Noor (Accused No.2) are convicted for the offences punishable under sections 326-A, 201 & 120-B RPC 165.”

The judge said that in the instant case it has been established that in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy the accused persons have had themselves committed the horrific act of throwing acid on the victim, therefore, they cannot escape from the first ingredient of having knowledge about the commission of offence they have themselves committed.

“It has been also established, as has been discussed here-in-above, that the accused persons have caused to disappear the acid bottle, glass beaker, erased black tape lines and stickers from the white Maruti car used in commission of the crime, which were important pieces of evidence in this case, just to screen themselves from the legal peril,” he said.

The court held “both the ingredients necessary for constituting the offence under section 201 RPC are established. The accused persons have not put forth any probable defence to suggest even remotely as to why they have been implicated in this case.

“The accused No.1 has admitted his relations with the victim. The accused No.2 has also admitted that he had no animosity with the victim”.

The 312 page judgment read that prosecution witness (PW) 11 has proved that he had seen the accused No.2 immediately before the occurrence plying the white Maruti car, proved to have been used in throwing acid on the victim, on the road where the occurrence has taken place.

It stated “the witness has identified accused No.2 in TIP conducted by PW-33 and also identified him in the court but, no probable defence has been put forth as to why this PW-11, who had no link either with the victim or the accused persons or any sort of animosity with the accused No.2, has made incriminating statement against accused No. 2. The accused persons have not put forth any defence as to why the PWs have made statements against them”.

Accused No.1 has, according to the judgment, has stated in his statement under Section 342 CrPC that in 2010, he had some heated exchange of words with PW-48 on a snooker game, this is a reason for falsely implicating him in this case. However, he has produced any evidence in this regard; rather he has himself said that from 2010 till December, 2014 he (PW-48) never followed him in any manner or he had any complaint against him.

It read “the counsel for accused No.2 had also argued that PW[1]11 has been a planted witness, he was interested in the victim, therefore, his statement cannot be relied upon. However, the accused persons particularly accused No.2 have not taken such a defence against PW-11nor there is any evidence in this regard. This seems like a false defence taken without any basis. It is settled law that when an accused furnishes false answers as regard to proved facts, the court can draw adverse inference against such accused and such inference can become additional circumstance to prove the guilt of the accused. Reference can be made to AIR 1994 SC 458 and AIR 2010 SC 2352”.

The judge found absolutely no material from the defence side to suggest any probable reason for falsely implicating the accused persons in this case. The established facts, circumstances and the chain of evidence taken cumulatively are so complete and consistent that in all human probabilities the only hypothesis is that the horrendous act of throwing acid on the victim has been committed by the accused No.2 in furtherance of the conspiracy hatched by accused No.1 with accused No.2.

The established facts and circumstances do not leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused persons, it added.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *