SRINAGAR: Nearly 15 years after the incident, a court in Anantnag has acquitted five accused persons in a case arising from a 2011 stone-pelting incident at Batakoot, Pahalgam, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.
The judgment was delivered on April 4, 2026, by Additional Sessions Judge Masarat Roohi in a case titled State of JK through SHO Police Station Pahalgam vs Abdul Rehman Bhat and others, arising out of FIR No. 43/2011 registered under Sections 148, 149, 152, 341, 332, 353 and 336 of the Ranbir Penal Code.
The prosecution was represented by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Union Territory, while the accused Abdul Rehman Bhat was represented by Arjumand Reshi, Advocate, and the remaining accused Mushtaq Ahmad Wani, Zaffar Ahmad Wani, Abdul Rashid Wani and Javaid Ahmad Ansari were represented by Reyaz Ahmad Ganie, Advocate.
According to the prosecution’s case, on June 20, 2011, a police party on routine patrol near Jamia Masjid, Batakoot, was confronted by a mob allegedly armed with lathis and stones. It was alleged that the mob attacked police and CRPF personnel, obstructed them from performing official duties, caused injuries to police personnel and blocked the Pahalgam road, thereby disrupting public movement. The accused were stated to be part of this unlawful assembly and were charged accordingly.
The case was instituted in December 2011, and charges were framed in July 2013, to which the accused pleaded not guilty. During the trial, the prosecution examined only two witnesses, including the then SHO of Police Station Pahalgam and a constable who carried the docket for registration of the FIR.
In its judgment, the court found that the prosecution’s case suffered from serious evidentiary deficiencies. It noted that the incident involved a large crowd of around 50 persons, yet no test identification parade was conducted to establish the identity of the accused. The court observed that identification made for the first time in court, particularly in cases involving mob violence, carries weak evidentiary value.
The court further held that no specific overt act had been attributed to any of the accused. One of the key prosecution witnesses admitted during cross-examination that he had not seen the accused pelting stones and that, in such situations, it is not possible to ascertain who among the crowd actually indulged in stone pelting. The same witness also stated that the persons apprehended at the spot were not carrying stones at that time.
The court also took note of the admission that the crowd had assembled in connection with a missing child, suggesting that the gathering may have been spontaneous rather than a premeditated, unlawful assembly with a common criminal object. It held that the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredient of a common object required to invoke vicarious liability under Section 149 RPC.
Another significant lapse noted by the court was the absence of medical evidence to support the allegation that police personnel had sustained injuries. Neither the injured official nor the doctor was examined during trial, weakening the prosecution’s case in respect of offences relating to assault on public servants.
The court also found the non-examination of the investigating officer to be a serious flaw, observing that it deprived the defence of an opportunity to test the fairness and credibility of the investigation and broke the evidentiary chain linking the accused to the alleged offence.
Holding that the evidence on record was neither cogent nor reliable and left room for reasonable doubt, the court reiterated the settled principle that suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof. Relying on established legal principles, it concluded that the prosecution had failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, the court dismissed the prosecution’s case and acquitted all the accused of the charges. The accused were relieved of their bail and personal bonds, and the court directed that the seized property, if any, be dealt with in accordance with the law after the expiry of the appeal period.
