Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Oct 11: Principal Sessions Judge Udhampur, A K Koul today acquitted Zakir Hussain, son of Khushi Mohd of Manwa Hartian Udhampur, who was facing trial under Explosive Substances Act (ESA) by giving him the benefit of doubt.
Zakir Hussain was arrested by Rehmbal Police on October 25, 2005 in terms of Section 54 of CrPC and during interrogation the accused made a disclosure that he had concealed four detonators and three gelatin rods in a trunk in his residential house. On the basis of his disclosure recovery was made from the place identified by accused. The Bomb Disposal Squad defused the recovered explosive material.
After investigation, the complicity of accused in commission of offence under Section 2/5 of Explosive Substances Act was established and after completion of investigation challan was presented.
After hearing Public Prosecutor Navneet Gupta for the State whereas Advocate Pardeep Kumar for the accused, Principal Sessions Judge observed, “there are so many witnesses and most of them are from the Police Department and one of them is an FSL expert. Three civilians have turned hostile to prosecution and in view of the infirmities it would be hazardous to believe the police officials who have deposed in the case”.
“Not only that prosecution witness Gurjeet Singh, who was a member of Bomb Defusing Squad has also turned hostile because he states that recovery was made before he reached the place of occurrence and he cannot identify the accused present in the court. He refuted his statement under Section 161 of CrPC to the extent that the explosive material was recovered at the instance of accused”, the Court said.
“After evaluating entire prosecution evidence it emerges that the case is solely based on the testimony of police officials and the disclosure statement of accused. As already pointed out the disclosure statement and the recovery shown at the instance of accused are seriously doubtful and are so not saved by Section 27 of Evidence Act”, the Court said, adding “the testimony of police officials without corroboration from any independent witness cannot be safely relied upon. The investigating officer has not entered the witness box for the reasons not known. The testimony of the investigating officer in a case of this type was of immense importance because he had recorded the disclosure statement and affected the recovery”.
“All these facts being co-existent have left the court with no option but to observe that the case is not based on sound footing. The realities and truth apart it is always obligatory on the prosecution to establish the case beyond all shadows of doubt but here it appears that there are so many doubtful patches in the prosecution case and the accused cannot be convicted on the basis of doubtful version of the witnesses”, Principal Sessions Judge said.
With these observations, the Court dismissed the case and the accused was acquitted while being given the benefit of doubt.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel