State of J&K vs Manzoor Ahmed Code Farman

Bansi Lal Bhat, J.—Special Leave to file appeal is sought by the State against the judgment of acquittal recorded by Pr. Sessions Judge,

Ramban on 28.11.2013 by virtue whereof respondent-Manzoor Ahmed has been acquitted for want of legal proof. Aggrieved of the judgment of

acquittal the State seeks leave to file appeal as aforesaid. Prosecution case, shorn of unnecessary details is that case under FIR No. 52/2006 for

offence under Sections 302/364/121-A RPC and 4/25 Arms Act was registered at police station, Gool on the basis of a source report that one

Shamim Akhter a student of 12 standard, while returning from her school on 21.09.2006, was kidnapped by unidentified militants at Gun point and

her dead body bearing injuries inflicted by sharp edged weapons, was found at Brond, Thatharka, Tehsil Mahore, which created panic in the area.

It was during the course of investigation of the case registered under FIR No. 72/2007 that one of the militants, namely, Manzoor Ahmed code

Farman (hereinafter referred to as ""accused') made a disclosure statement to the effect that he, in connivance with militants Riaz Ahmed code

Shahid and Ajaz Ahmed code Kari of Hijbulmujahidin outfit kidnapped the deceased-Shamim Akhter from Dalwa Gool while returning from

school; militant Ajaz Ahmed code Kari killed her with an axe in the bushes at Karonda the same night because she had got terrorist, namely, Billu

Gujjar killed by the security forces. As per disclosure statement of accused Manzoor Ahmed code Farman dead body of deceased was put in a

bag and thrown into the bushes. The investigation found the involvement of three militants including the accused in the alleged occurrence.

However, Riaz Ahmed code Shahid was killed by the security forces on 21.05.2007 while Ajaz Ahmed code Kari was also killed by security

forces on 26.08.2007. Therefore, only accused Manzoor Ahmed code Farman was put on trial for offence under Sections 302/364 RPC after he

pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against him and claimed to be tried. Prosecution adduced evidence at the trial which culminated in

acquittal of accused as aforesaid.

We have gone through the impugned judgment. It appeals that in the FIR identity of abductors of deceased has not been disclosed. Such

identity is said to have become known only during the investigation of case registered under FIR No. 72/2007, when present accused who is the

only surviving accused, made statement spilling the beans regarding abduction and murder of deceased. Accused Manzoor Ahmed Farman is the

sole surviving accused facing trial. Since the case rests entirely upon the disclosure attributed to accused, prosecution was left with no other mode

of proof. It is so sad that all prosecution witnesses except PW Farooq Ahmed (cousin of deceased) and the formal witnesses have turned hostile

to prosecution and reflected their ignorance about the occurrence. PWs Mohd. Botia and Tariq Abdulla, who are witnesses to the disclosure

statement of accused, have turned hostile at the trial and denied that any confessional statement was made by the accused in their presence. In so

far as the testimony of Farooq Ahmed is concerned, the same does not inspire confidence. The witness claims to have been accompanying the

deceased at the relevant time. It is in his statement that he had informed the parents of deceased and also police disclosing the identity of accused.

However, the FIR belies his claim. On meticulous examination and close scrutiny of testimony of Farooq Ahmed learned Trial Court disbelieved

him and rightly so. Even sisters of the deceased, namely, Shada and Sabeena stated to have been accompanying her at the relevant time have

neither been cited nor examined as witnesses. Prosecution case, in fact, rules out direct evidence.

Viewed thus, testimony of Farooq Ahmed is to be excluded as being concocted.

Sadly as per testimonies of PWs Mohamdu and Suram Singh, father and two family members of the deceased were also subsequently

eliminated by the militants. Unfortunately prosecution has not been able to bring on record substantive evidence to link the accused with the

commission of alleged crime. Conclusion arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge being based on proper appreciation of evidence adduced at the

trial and there being no substantial and compelling reasons to take a contrary view, no ground for grant of leave to file appeal is made out. SLAA

is, accordingly, declined. Consequently, appeal also fails and is hereby dismissed.