Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, July 18: A Division Bench of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court comprising Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Shahzad Azeem has upheld the acquittal of Tajinder Singh and Ravinder Singh, alleged members of KZF.
The accusations which led to trial of Tajinder Singh and Ravinder Singh are that on 24.08.2005, a source information was received by SHO Police Station, Gandhi Nagar that accused persons were operating under the diktat of Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) with the design and purpose to disturb the peace, tranquility, integrity and sovereignty of the country, and are seducing the youth of Satwari, Gadigarh and Gandhi Nagar to join the KZF, a terrorist organization.
On receipt of this information, a case being FIR No. 195/2005 under Sections 121, 121-A, 122, 123, 120-B RPC was registered and investigation started. During investigation, the police party of Police Station Gandhi Nagar in collaboration with police party of Police Station Satwari arrested the accused.
On completion of the investigation, final police report was laid before the competent court and vide order dated 23.05.2007 formal charges for commission of offences under Sections 4/5 ESA, 7/25 Arms Act and 120-B RPC were drawn up against the accused and on their denial, the trial commenced.
While upholding the judgment of trial court, Division Bench observed, “it is seen that prosecution case, right from the time of arrest of accused; making of disclosure statements; recovery of alleged arms and ammunition; and seizure and safe custody is marred by contradictions, improbabilities, omissions, discrepancies and even the conduct of the prosecution witnesses, who were none other than the police personnel/officers, is highly unworthy of reliance, as they lacks credibility”.
“Their presence at the relevant point of time do not inspire confidence in the manner, as alleged by the prosecution. We do not find the impugned judgment, whereby accused are acquitted, suffers from any perversity or impossibility, calling for interference or warranting any contrary view than the one taken by the trial court”, the DB said.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
