A Special Court designated under the UAPA at Sopore has acquitted two Baramulla youth and ordered their release after they spent nearly six years in custody, if not required to be detained for any other case.
The two arrested youth, Huzaif Firdous Bhat of Choora, Sopore in Baramulla and Ajaz Ahmad Khan of Najibhat, Kreeri in Baramulla were arrested in a case of alleged recovery of two hand grenades, 100 rounds of AK-47 ammunition and Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) letter-pad from a vehicle in Baramulla in September 2020.
The court said the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the seized arms and ammunition were recovered from the possession of the duo and pointed out the evidence suffers from material inconsistencies and infirmities to base a conviction upon it.
In his 71-page judgment, Special Judge Feroz Ahmad Khan observed , “The prosecution has not established through cogent and dependable evidence that the arms and ammunition produced before the court were recovered from the conscious possession of the accused in the manner alleged,” the court observed.
It further observed that once the alleged recovery itself becomes doubtful, “the foundation for the offences under Sections 18 and 23 UAPA and Section 7/25 of the Arms Act is substantially weakened.
Likewise, the allegation under Section 39 UAPA requires reliable evidence demonstrating intentional support or assistance to the terrorist organisation.
Mere allegation of association, unsupported by dependable independent evidence of intentional assistance, cannot by itself satisfy the standard of proof required for conviction.”
According to the judgement, the prosecution has also not produced any evidence connecting either accused with any identified terrorist, terrorist act, terrorist organisation activity or any specific act of intentional aid.
“The Investigating Officer admitted that no name of any terrorist with whom the accused allegedly had contact emerged during investigation.”
“The court is therefore of the considered view that the prosecution evidence, taken as a whole, does not inspire the degree of confidence required for recording a finding of guilt. The contradictions, omissions and procedural infirmities, when considered cumulatively and not in isolation, create a reasonable and substantial doubt regarding the prosecution version,” reads the judgement.
“Suspicion, however grave, cannot substitute proof. The prosecution must travel the entire distance from suspicion to legal proof,” the judge observed adding “in the present case, that distance has not been traversed.”
“The benefit of such doubt must necessarily go to the accused,” the court said and held that prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against both the accused persons and acquitted both the accused Huzaif Firdous Bhat and Ajaz Ahmad Khan in the FIR No:159 /2020 u/s 7/25 Indian Arms Act 1959 and also under Section 39 and under Section 23 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
The case originated on September 16, 2020, when a joint police, Army and CRPF party established a checkpoint near Kanispora, close to Singhpora crossing on the National Highway in Baramulla, following information about the movement of unidentified militants allegedly planning a major terrorist attack.
A white Maruti car bearing registration number JK-05C-6029, travelling from Singhpora towards Baramulla, was stopped and searched. Police alleged that two hand grenades and 100 live rounds of AK-47 ammunition were recovered from beneath the driver’s seat.
Huzaif was identified as the driver while Ajaz was travelling as a passenger.
Police had claimed that photocopies of LeT letter pads were recovered during their personal searches and that the two men disclosed their association with the outfit as overground workers.
The prosecution alleged that the ammunition had been illegally acquired and was being transported towards Baramulla to facilitate terrorist activities. The case was registered under provisions of the UAPA and Arms Act, and a chargesheet was subsequently filed before the court on 10-3-2021.
During the trial, however, the defence challenged the prosecution version, pointing to contradictions among police witnesses over the checkpoint operation, search of the vehicle and recovery of the alleged weapons.