Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar Mere Voter List and Corrected SSC Certificate Cannot Prove Paternity: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects 21-Year-Old Bid for DNA Test in Partition Appeal Section 147 NI Act Makes Offence Compoundable At Any Stage: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Concurrent Convictions in Cheque Bounce Case After Settlement Bald Allegations of Adultery Based on Suspicion Cannot Dissolve a Marriage: Jharkhand High Court Once a Document Is Admitted in Evidence, Its Stamp Defect Cannot Be Reopened: Madras High Court

Acquittal in Terrorism Case: “Prosecution Failed to Prove Charges Beyond Reasonable Doubt,” J&K HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Jammu, June 7, 2023: In a significant ruling, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld the acquittal of the accused in a terrorism-related case. The court stated that the prosecution failed to establish the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the respondents. The judgment, delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice MA Chowdhary, emphasized the discrepancies in the evidence presented by the prosecution, including the lack of independent witnesses and the failure to produce conclusive forensic and ballistic evidence.

The case, titled 'State v. Bashir Ahmed & Ors.', Involved charges under sections 120-B, 121, 121-A, 122, 153A of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC), as well as sections 4/5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sections 7/25 of the Arms Act. The accused were alleged members of the militant organization Lashkar-e-Taiba, accused of planning acts of sabotage and terrorist activities.

Quoting from the judgment, Justice MA Chowdhary remarked, “The prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt to bring home the charge against the accused for the commission of any of the offenses of which the accused had been charged.” The court highlighted the inconsistencies among the prosecution witnesses, the lack of independent witnesses to support the search and seizure, and the non-production of conclusive ballistic and forensic evidence.

The judgment also pointed out that”the initial charges against the accused, including sedition charges, were dropped before the trial. The court stressed the importance of independent witnesses in search and seizure cases, stating that their absence affects the weight of the evidence. Furthermore, the court found the prosecution’s story to be unreliable, noting that the accused, allegedly involved in terrorist activities, were apprehended without any resistance.

The defense counsel, representing Bashir Ahmed & Ors., argued that the prosecution had miserably failed to connect the accused with the commission of the alleged offenses. They emphasized the lack of identification by prosecution witnesses and the absence of concrete evidence to support the recovery of weapons and explosives.

With the High Court’s decision to uphold the acquittal, the appeal filed by the State (now Union Territory) of Jammu & Kashmir has been dismissed. This ruling highlights the importance of presenting strong and conclusive evidence in criminal cases to secure convictions.

Date of Decision: 07.06.2023

State (now UT) of J&K   VS Bashir Ahmed & Ors.          

Latest Legal News