Excelsior Correspondent
Srinagar, May 26: A local court today acquitted two persons for their alleged involvement in a terror attack of 2006 as the prosecution failed to provide evidence.
The court of 3rd Additional Sessions Judge Srinagar presided by Dinesh Gupta acquitted Mohd Yousuf Dagga of Batamaloo, Srinagar and Waseem Raja Zargar of Zonimaar, Srinagar.
Both were arrested and charged by the police for commission of offences under section 302, 307 of RPC and Arms Act.
They were accused of firing at one Shameem Ahmed Magray of Lal bazar Srinagar at present a shopkeeper at Ikhwan Chowk with illegal weapons at Ikhwan Chowk Srinagar on 26-04-2006 due to which he was injured.
Prosecution produced the challan against the three accused persons for the commission of offence under section 307,326, RPC, 7/27 Arms Act.
A charge was read over to the accused-Dagga and Zargar and they did not plead guilty and prayed for the trial of the challan.
The court said the prosecution due to lack of evidence miserably fails to prove the guilt of the accused, beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused are acquitted and challan is disposed of as dismissed.
With regard to accused-Mohd Rafeeq Sheikh of Kishtwar the court said that the proceeding under Section 512 Cr.P.C (Proclaimed offender) are still in force against him, so office is directed to produce/recall the file from the record room as and when the accused shall be produced before the Court and.
The counsel Mir Urfi and Owais Pandit representing the accused-Dagga and Zargar stated that prosecution miserably fails to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. As per prosecution, two unknown persons attacked one Shameem Ahmed Magray of Lal Bazar by opening fire on him.
Both the counsels contended that after the lodging of FIR, accused, who were arrested in some other case had made the disclosure statement and confessed their guilt in the instant FIR. Prosecution fails to produce and prove any such disclosure statement, before this court.
Advocate Urfi further stated that prosecution alleges that accused had opened fire with the pistol, but fails to prove what efforts they had made to recover the pistol and how the accused had destroyed said weapon of offence as such the ingredients of offence under section 201 is also not made out.
“Courts dealing with criminal cases at least should constantly remember that there is a long mental distance between may be true and must be true and this basic and golden rule only helps to maintain the vital distinction between conjectures and sure conclusions to be arrived at on the touchstone of a dispassionate judicial scrutiny based upon a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case as well as quality and credibility of the evidence brought on record”, reads the judgment.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
