J&K And Ladakh High Court Upholds Acquittal In 2005 Jammu Terror Case

"Non-association of independent civilian witnesses, despite their availability at the time of arrest and alleged recovery, casts a serious shadow over the credibility of the investigation" , observed the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh while upholding the acquittal of two men accused in a 2005 terror-linked arms recovery case in Jammu. The Court comprising Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Shahzad Azeem held that the prosecution's failure to involve neutral witnesses at crucial stages particularly in a case involving serious allegations of terrorist conspiracy and arms trafficking rendered the arrest and seizures doubtful and the entire investigation unworthy of reliance.Affirming the trial court's judgment acquitting Tajinder Singh and Ravinder Singh of offences under Sections 4/5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 7/25 of the Arms Act and Section 120-B of the RPC Justice Shahzad Azeem writing for the bench observed, “.. once it has come in the testimonies of the witnesses that civilians were very much available, but they were not associated, same vitiates the prosecution case and renders the same unworthy of reliance.”It added, “This aspect assumes importance in view of the contradictions we have pointed out in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses”The case dates back to 2005 when Police Station Gandhi Nagar Jammu received intelligence inputs that the Respondent/accused had ties with K.Z.F. (Khalistan Zindabad Force), a banned militant outfit allegedly operating at the behest of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). It was alleged that the accused were actively recruiting local youth from areas of Jammu to join the terror outfit. Upon this input, an FIR was registered under Sections 121, 121-A, 122, 123, and 120-B RPC.The accused were apprehended at Satwari Chowk during a joint naka laid by police teams of Gandhi Nagar and Satwari. During their interrogation, they allegedly disclosed the location of arms and explosives hidden in a plastic bag near Nikki Tawi at Sajadpur. The prosecution claimed that based on this disclosure, recoveries were effected.Challenging the acquittal, AAG Mr. Ravinder Gupta submitted that the accused were involved in serious offences impacting national security and that the trial court had erroneously ignored the recovery made at the instance of the accused. He argued that the investigating officer had conducted a scientific probe and that minor discrepancies in witness testimonies could not outweigh the evidentiary value of the recoveries.On the other hand, Advocate Mr. Prince Khanna, appearing for the respondents, highlighted glaring contradictions in the prosecution's case. He submitted that there were conflicting statements among police witnesses regarding the mode of arrest and the sequence of events leading to the recovery. He further argued that all witnesses were police officials, and despite admitting that civilians were present at the spot, none were made witnesses during the arrest, disclosure, or recovery — thereby affecting the transparency of the entire process.The Court extensively examined the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and found material contradictions. For instance, some witnesses claimed the accused were walking at the time of arrest, while others said they were in a matador. Even the star witness gave a different version compared an officer from Police Station Satwari, who stated that after the arrest, they directly proceeded to the place of recovery without going to the police station, contrary to the prosecution's version that disclosure was made at the station.The Court emphasized that witnesses who were cited as attesting witnesses to the alleged disclosure, either turned hostile or failed to corroborate the prosecution's version and many among them outrightly denied witnessing any part of the recovery.Furthermore, the Court observed discrepancies in the manner of recovery itself. Some witnesses claimed the items were buried, others said they were hidden in bushes, and one witness stated that the SHO himself retrieved the bag. Crucially, the prosecution failed to produce the mattock allegedly used for digging. There was also no clear evidence about how the recovered material was sealed, stored, or safely transported, raising doubts about the chain of custody.Highlighting the presence of independent civilian witnesses at the scene but the prosecution's failure to include them in the calendar of witnesses, the Court observed that once it is evident from the testimonies that civilians were indeed present, their non-association casts a serious doubt on the prosecution's case and renders it unreliable.The Court found it particularly troubling that no Magistrate was examined to prove sealing or resealing of recovered material, and that the investigation appeared to have been conducted in a manner that left out vital safeguards.Relying on precedents laid down by the Supreme Court in Tota Singh vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1987 SC 1083) ...

J&K And Ladakh High Court Upholds Acquittal In 2005 Jammu Terror Case

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags