HC raps police for failing to nail accused in terror crime
Asks for action against those ‘who failed in their duty’
Srinagar: The High Court Wednesday asked the Director General of J&K Police (DGP) and the Director Prosecution to initiate action against their personnel for “failing to do their duty” in getting punishment for “alleged militants involved in the killing of a sub-inspector” in the city outskirts in 2006.
Justices Sanjeev Kumar and Rajesh Sekhri while upholding the judgment of the trial court, wherein the alleged assailants had been acquitted, directed the DGP and Director Prosecution for action against the erring officers, officials as per law.
The bench dismissed the State’s appeal against the 2011 judgment by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar vide which the alleged militants had been acquitted in the case lodged for offences under sections 302 (murder), 120-B RPC (criminal conspiracy) and 7/20 Indian Arms Act.
The case arose after the SI Mohammad Jamal of Police Station Zakura was fired upon by “unknown militants” in August 2006. The “unidentified” assailants had succeeded in escaping from the scene of occurrence.
During the investigation, some persons were taken into custody. “They made disclosure, consequent whereupon, one pistol magazine and three live cartridges were recovered from their possession,” says the prosecution.
However, since the material prosecution witnesses had turned hostile, the trial court acquitted the respondents on the premise of “no evidence”.
The appellate division bench observed “a cursory glance through the record would show that the justice delivery system in the present case has been taken for a ride and literally allowed to be abused and mutilated by subterfuge.
“The investigation appears to be perfunctory and anything but impartial. The public prosecutor appears to have acted more as a defence counsel and at last but not the least the trial court appeared to be mute to these manipulations and preferred to be indifferent.”
The bench continued “the role of the State government also leaves much to be desired. We feel that there was no seriousness at all even in the State’s approach to question the trial court’s judgment.”
Calling the approach a sorry state of affairs, it said “it is unfortunate that except Constable Abdul Qayoom, no other police official including the investigating officers and members of SIT, could muster courage to appear in the trial court, in a case in which one of their colleagues in uniform, has been shot dead by the militants.”
A glance over the statements of most of the prosecution witnesses, recorded under Section 161 CrPC, would show that witnesses to the occurrence had clearly testified that the deceased was fired upon by “unidentified militants”, however, they could identify the assailants, if produced before them, said the court.
It added that the investigating agency, in such circumstances, was obliged to conduct a Test Identification Parade of the accused persons.
“The investigating agency has failed in its duty for the reasons best known to it and the public prosecutor in the present case, too has not acted in a manner befitting the position held by him,” the division bench remarked.
It is case of the State that material official witnesses of the prosecution including SHO Police Station Nigeen (Inspector Sajad Ahmad) on whose docket FIR in the present case came to be registered, PW-Nazir Ahmad (Scientific Officer, FSL), PW-Manzoor Ahmad Qadri (Scientific Assistant Serology, FSL), PWs ASI Ali Mohammad, ASI Abdul Ahad, investigating officers as well as ASI Mohammad Ramzan, have not been examined by learned trial court.
It also says “some material witnesses to occurrence, namely, Constable Ghulam Nabi, SGCT Mohammad Maqbool, HC Hamid-ud-Din and HC Ghulam Qadir as also members of Special Investigation Team (SIT), too have not been examined by the trial court.”
Given the facts and circumstances of the present case, we have no other option but to concur with the observation of the learned trial court that it is a case of “no evidence”, the High Court said.
