Srinagar: After more than two decades of trial proceedings, a court here has acquitted all accused persons in the alleged SRO-43 fraud case involving government officials who ensured appointment of two brothers from city downtown in government service on compassionate grounds after their mother died in crossfire in 1990.
The judgment, delivered by City Judge Tarun Mahajan, held that the prosecution had failed to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt and could not establish any criminal conspiracy or fraudulent appointment under the compassionate appointment scheme.
The case related to the death of a woman, Mst Posha, of Braripora Nawakadal during cross-firing in Srinagar in 1990. The prosecution alleged that two of her sons, Irfan Ahmad Langoo and Imtiyaz Ahmad Langoo, had secured government jobs under SRO-43 despite the policy permitting only one appointment for an affected family.
The investigating agency, Crime Branch, had alleged that Revenue officials and government employees manipulated official records and prepared false verification reports to facilitate the appointments.
The agency had filed the charge-sheet in 2005 under sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B RPC against seven accused persons including Revenue officials, witnesses to verification reports and an official from the DC Office Srinagar. Three accused including the then Patwari, Girdawar and the in-charge official from the DC Office, have died since the filing of the charge-sheet in the case.
However, the court found that the prosecution failed to establish the most fundamental allegation in the case — that one of the accused had actually secured appointment under SRO-43 on the basis of his mother’s death. The court observed that unless the first appointment itself was proved, the allegation regarding a second illegal appointment could not survive.
One of the strongest observations made by the court related to the conduct of the investigation. The court noted that the Investigating Officer, despite being a “crucial witness”, was never produced before the court during trial.
The absence of the investigating officer, according to the court, created major gaps in the prosecution case and deprived an opportunity to challenge important aspects of the investigation.
The court also pointed out that several important documents allegedly seized during investigation, including service records and official files, were never properly proved in accordance with law. This, the court said, substantially weakened the prosecution’s case.
In another important observation, the court highlighted contradictions within the prosecution’s own evidence regarding the alleged forged verification report.
While the prosecution accused certain Revenue officials of preparing a false report certifying that no family member had previously obtained government employment under SRO-43, one prosecution witness admitted during testimony that he himself had prepared the report.
The court observed that this contradiction raised “serious questions” about the manner in which the investigation had been conducted.
The court also rejected allegations of criminal conspiracy against officials posted in the Deputy Commissioner’s Office. It observed that merely processing files or handling official paperwork relating to SRO-43 cases could not by itself establish connivance or criminal intent.
Although no direct censure or punitive direction was issued against any officer or agency, the judgment contains clear criticism of the prosecution’s handling of the case, particularly regarding incomplete evidence, failure to examine material witnesses, and inconsistencies in the investigation.
The court further observed that the forensic evidence relating to signatures and handwriting lost relevance because the prosecution had failed to establish the foundational allegations in the case itself.
Reiterating the settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that suspicion cannot substitute proof, the court held that the prosecution had failed to connect the accused persons with the commission of offences under the Ranbir Penal Code. Consequently, all surviving accused persons were acquitted of the charges framed against them.
