Bansi Lal Bhat, J.
SLAA No. 167/2014
1. State seeks leave to file appeal against judgment dated 27.12.2013 passed by Principal Sessions Judge, Ramban in case titled ""State v. Abdul
Rahim Bhat and ors."", by virtue whereof the respondents (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'accused') have been acquitted of offence under
Sections 302/109/201 RPC. Perused the Record and heard Mr. Monish Chopra, learned GA.
2. Case under FIR No. 47/2008 was registered at Police Station-Gool on the basis of verbal information emanating from one Roshni Begum on
02.08.2008 wherein she alleged that while returning from the pasture, she found the headless body of her husband-Abdul Rashid Bhat lying in the
maize field near Block Office, Gool. It appeared that the husband of informant had been killed during the intervening night of 1st/2nd August, 2008
with some sharp edged weapon. Investigation in the case registered for offence under Section 302 RPC and 4/25 Arms Act culminated in filing of
chargesheet against accused Abdul Rahim, Javed Ahmed for offence under Sections 302/109/201 RPC and for offence under Section 302/109
RPC against accused Abdul Gani and Shehnaz Begum. The trial Court framed charges against the accused under Sections 302/109/201 RPC.
The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution adduced evidence at the trial, on consideration whereof the impugned
judgment of acquittal was pronounced. Accused Abdul Gani died during the course of trial.
3. Admittedly, there was no eye witness to the occurrence. Prosecution relied upon the disclosure statement of accused Abdul Rahim Bhat and
Javed Ahmed followed by recovery of weapons of offence as the only mode of proof to establish complicity of accused in the alleged occurrence.
However, none of the witnesses supported the prosecution version in regard to this mode of proof. PWs-Roshni Begum, Shahnawaz Bhat, Mohd.
Ayub, Moulvi Ghulam Nabi, Parvez Ahmed, Abdul Gani Bhat and Mohd. Sharief did not at all support the disclosure statement and the recovery
memo. These witnesses include the widow and son of deceased. Some of the witnesses claimed that SHO had himself brought the weapon of
offence from the house of accused. PW-Shahnawaz Bhat went to the extent of saying that Police has cooked up a false case against the accused
persons. Same is the version of PW-Mohd. Ayub, who happened to be the son of the deceased. PW-Moulvi Ghulam Nabi claimed that it was
SHO who told him about the disclosures allegedly made by accused. He was declared hostile to prosecution. PWs-Rafiqa Begum and Farid
Ahmed Bhat denied having knowledge about the occurrence. However, some witnesses attributed the intimidatory letters to Rafiqa Begum and
Farid Ahmed Bhat. It is in testimony of PW-Mohd. Ayub that while Hazara Begum and PW-Rafiqa Begum who were instrumental in killing of the
deceased with the help of militants, have been cited as prosecution witnesses, accused persons have been falsely implicated in the case. It is,
therefore, clear that the Police version of accused being the culprits is not supported by the prosecution witnesses who did not support the
disclosure statements attributed to accused and consequent recovery of weapons of offence at their instance. The Investigating Agency appears to
have conducted investigation in a casual manner and no serious attempts appear to have been made to trace out the assailant/assailants. The role of
PW-Farid Ahmed Bhat in delivering the letter in terms whereof deceased was threatened to withdraw the land dispute against husband of Rafiqa
Begum and the role of accused Rafiqa Begum raising suspicion of their complicity in the murder of deceased appears to have been ignored.
Instead they were cited as prosecution witnesses. Was it done out of design or due to incompetence should be the subject of a probe in view of
the inevitable conclusions arrived at by the trial Court with which we concur. DGP, while looking into the role played by Investigating Officer-
Shamim Ahmed, may direct fresh investigation to trace the authorship of murder of deceased in the light of evidence brought on record that the real
culprits have been spared and cited as prosecution witnesses in the case.
4. We find no substantial or compelling reasons to differ with the findings recorded in the impugned judgment. SLAA is accordingly declined and
the Criminal Acquittal Appeal No. 158/2014 is also dismissed. A copy of this judgment shall be forwarded to Director General of Police for
necessary action in the light of observations made in the judgment.
