Allahabad High Court Acquits Four Death Row Convicts In 2007 CRPF Camp Terror Attack Case, Blames 'Defective Probe'

The Allahabad High Court on Wednesday (October 29) set aside a 2019 death sentence awarded to four men–Mohd Sharif, Imran Shahjad, Mohd. Farooq and Sabauddin–convicted by the trial court for carrying out a terror attack at a CRPF camp in Rampur in 2007, in which eight personnel lost their lives. The court also set aside the life term of another Jang Bahadur Khan @ Baba convicted under Section 302 IPC. While the four men were convicted for offences under Sections 302(murder) and 149(unlawful assembly) and sentenced to death, they along with accused Jang Bahadur Khan were also convicted under Sections 16(punishment for committing a terrorist act) and 20(Punishment for being member of terrorist gang or organisation) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and were sentenced to life imprisonment. The court was considering the convicts appeal as well as death sentence referral by the trial court. The incident took place on the night of December 31, 2007, when the first informants on the ground heard of incessant firing taking place near the CRPF Group Centre Gate No.1. A division bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra in its 185-page order, while questioning the manner of investigation, observed:"...this case would have met a different result had the investigation and the prosecution been conducted by a more trained police. When the eyewitnesses were not knowing the accused persons from before and when the incident had occurred in the darkness of the night then it was imperative for the investigating agencies to have kept the arrested persons incognito...the prosecution should have, in the circumstances narrated above, prayed for Test Identification Parade. When the FIR and the statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. were silent with regard to the recognition of the appellants by facial expression or by name then it was imperative that the accused ought to have been kept BAPARDA (unveiled/uncovered) and they should have been made to get recognized by the method of Test Identification Parade alone".It also observed that when the case pertained to circumstantial evidence then the finger prints which were allegedly lifted from the glass-panes of the CRPF Camp on 1.1.2008, ought to have been "kept in extreme safe custody". The bench also said that the "empty cartridges, firearms etc. which were recovered from the place of incident", ought to have been kept in the police Malkhana (storage room in police station where evidence is kept). It said that the State Government and the Central Government have come up with various rules and notifications as to how a Malkhana ought to be operated; however in the instant case it was found that none of these directions have been followed by the police and investigating agencies. "The defect in investigation went to the root of the case and ultimately culminated in the acquittal of the accused persons. We are deeply concerned with the magnitude and enormity of the offence and at the same time we are constrained to observe that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the case against the accused for the principal offence beyond reasonable doubt which is a golden rule that runs through the web of criminal jurisprudence. The State would be at liberty to deal with appropriately the lapses in investigation and proceed against the guilty police officers under law"The court further observed that the bullets which were recovered from the CRPF camp by the CRPF personnel did not match the test bullets and thus possibility of tampering could not be ruled out. While the court observed that it cannot deny that the incident did take place, it however said:"In the instant case on account of the fact that the prosecution witnesses had never known the accused-appellants from before and were never made to identify the appellants in a TIP, a doubt is raised as to whether the prosecution witnesses were ever aware that the accused-appellants had actually committed the offence. The Court from the entire reading of the records and after hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants finds that the prosecution witnesses at the time of getting their statements recorded before the Investigating Officer under section 161 Cr.P.C. and at the time of lodging of the FIR, were not knowing the names of the accused persons".The court said that there were sufficient dock recognitions conducted and the prosecution eye-witnesses had recognized the accused by their names. However, in the cross examinations, the witnesses simply failed to inform the Court as to how and when they got to know the names of the accused persons as at the time of the lodging of the FIR and at the time of the recording of Section 161 CrPC statements, the witnesses did not know the accused's names. With respect to safe keeping of firearms, the empty cartridges and the grenades, the bench observed that no such safe keeping was done. "In fact the person who had...

Allahabad High Court Acquits Four Death Row Convicts In 2007 CRPF Camp Terror Attack Case, Blames 'Defective Probe'

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags