DB sets aside life imprisonment of 3 alleged HM militants

Excelsior Correspondent

JAMMU, May 4: Division Bench of State High Court comprising Justice Mohammad Yaqoob Mir and Justice B S Walia has set-aside life imprisonment awarded to three alleged HM militants by giving them benefit of doubt.
The judgment was passed in an appeal filed against the judgment of trial court whereby life-imprisonment was awarded to Mohammad Hussain, Mushtaq Ahmed and Gul Mohammad, all residents of Ramnagar for killing Arshad Begum and Amina Begum by slitting their throats at village Kadwa on August 2, 2001.
After hearing Advocate MA Bhat for the accused person whereas AAG Ravinder Gupta for the State, the DB observed, “it is quite unfortunate that two young ladies at the prime of their life have been murdered brutally. Conscience gets shocked. The criminals who have committed this dastardly act have remained to be punished”, adding “trial court has  been very sensitive regarding the gruesome murder committed but in the process appears to have been swayed by sentiments because it has missed to focus on the testimony of three witnesses”.
“Trial court has also erred in not correctly appreciating the testimony of two defence witnesses. Though they were not produced by prosecution but were produced in defence by the accused”, the DB said, adding “the trial court while relying on the testimony of two witnesses has ignored the other prosecution witnesses and the defence witnesses and it is trite that the standard of proof vis-a-vis defence has to be on the principle of preponderance of probabilities”.
DB further observed, “the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence is that the accused are presumed to be innocent until proved guilty. It is also settled principle that guilt against the accused shall be proved beyond shadow of doubt. The testimony of the two witnesses is not free from doubt and the identity of the assailants has remained a mystery”.
“In our view, the doubtful position about the identity of the assailants favours the appellants (accused). Therefore, appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt, so are, accordingly, acquitted”, the DB said.