Srinagar: A sessions court in the city, while acquitting an accused in the murder of a woman in the city eight years ago, has directed the Inspector General of Police (IG) Kashmir to initiate a departmental inquiry against the investigating officer for investigating in a non-professional manner.
The additional sessions judge Anjum Ara, while disposing of the case filed through police Station Lal Bazar Srinagar versus Shiraz Ahmad Ellahi of Machwoo Chadoora and others, extended the benefit of doubt in favour of all the accused persons.
“I hereby acquit the Accused No-1 Shiraz Ahmad Ellahi S/o Farooq Ahmad EllahiR/o Machwoo Chadoora for the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 380 (theft) ,454 (trespass) ,201 RPC, Accused No-2 Ashiq Hussain Ganai S/o Abdul Ganai R/o Chadoora and Accused No-3 Mohammad Amin Zargar S/o Ghulam Rasool Zargar R/o Draigam Budgam for the commission of the offence under Section 411 RPC in case FIR No 01/2017 of Police Station Lal Bazar. Accordingly, challan in hand is dismissed as not proved”, she ordered.
The judge ordered “initiation of departmental inquiry against the investigating officer for zeroing the investigation against the challaned accused persons without obtaining sufficient, complete and necessary evidence and by not investigating the role of other suspects and the present accused persons in the case properly and professionally”.
The case of the prosecution is that on January 31, 2017, complainant Azad Ahmad Bhat Sof Pokhribal Bota Kadal Srinagar came to the police station and lodged a written complaint and also supported the same orally stating that he is presently working in Jammu and Kashmir Bank at the Branch office Awoora Kralpora Kupwara. As such often remains out of his home in connection with his employment, and his wife Neelofar Azad remains at her home at Pukhribal alone along with her minor child, he said.
On 21/01/2017 when he reached his home in the evening and opened the gate and entered inside, however, after knocking on the main door of the house, but no one opened the door from inside. He entered the house from another door, and he was shocked when he saw his wife lying in a room and found the minor child lying in another room. After shaking the body of his wife, he found that she was dead.
A case FIR was registered, and an investigation started.
During the investigation, Shiraz Ahmad Ellahi disclosed and admitted that on 19-01-2017, during the day time, he went into the house of the complainant as he had good terms with the deceased Neelofar Azad. During this period, a scuffle took place between them, and he killed Neelofar Azad by strangulating/throttling her neck.
Thereafter, taking advantage of the situation, he committed theft of the golden ornaments and fled away from the spot.
Based on the disclosure statement, Shiraz Ahmad Ellahi was taken into custody in the case for commission of offences under section 302, 454,380 RPC and the proceedings initiated under Section 174 CRPC were closed.
On the basis of the disclosure made by the accused no.1, the gold ornaments, Jumkas golden 1 pair, rings golden 2 number and Bangle golden 1 number were recovered from the possession of two shopkeepers, accused No. 2 & 3, the prosecution said.
After perusal of the case diary and hearing the arguments and counterarguments, Judge Anjum Ara observed that it is evident that the investigating officer of the case has not investigated the case in a proper manner and within the parameters which were required to have been adopted during the investigation. “He seems to have deliberately and intentionally paved a way for safe passage to the accused persons by way of his faulty investigation. In these circumstances, the investigating officer of the case definitely needs to be proceeded against in the present case on account of acquittal of the accused persons due to his casual and non-professional approach in conducting of investigation, and action under law needs to be taken against him by his superior officers”, recorded the judge.
The prosecution evidence, the judge said, is weak, fragile, inconsistent, contradictory and does not inspire confidence in the mind of the court; rather, same creates serious doubts in the prosecution’s case.
On the other hand, the accused persons, the court said, have succeeded in searching the silver line so as to escape themselves from the clouds of the conviction hovering upon their heads. Therefore, serious doubt has been raised over the prosecution’s story, the benefit of which, in light of the set principles, will go in favour of the accused persons facing the trial in this case.
“The prosecution has failed to prove certain facts viz that the ornaments actually belong to the deceased, that ornaments were purchased by the deceased or her husband and the same were sold by A-1 to A-2 & A-3, recovered on the disclosure and identification of accused and that the ornaments were duly identified to be same ornaments”, it said.
The judgment recorded several factors, grounds and reasons which make the case of prosecution doubtful, including the “investigating officer failed to obtain an opinion as to whether a two-and-a-half-month-old child can survive for three days without milk and without human presence, that too in the harsh winter season”.
The neighbours, being the most material witnesses, were not cited as witnesses in the case and the investigating officer had focused on one accused only and ignoring the other aspects of the investigation.
The court said that the investigating officer failed to collect scientific evidence, including the location of all suspects at the relevant time and the Balaji Jewellers from where ornaments have been said to be purchased not cited as witnesses.
“Postmortem report does not support the prosecution case, which disputed the alleged date of death,” noted the judgment.
It pointed out “the alleged date of death/murder not proved by prosecution and I/O failed to investigate as if the murder took place on 21st, then who, except the husband, entered the house on the said day?”.
Besides the conduct of PW-1 (husband of the deceased) at the time he saw his wife dead and child half dead is not a normal conduct of an ordinary husband/father, the judgment reads.
