SRINAGAR: The Court of Principal Sessions Judge Srinagar, Abdul Rashid Malik has convicted Javaid Ahmad Bhat Son of Abdul Gani Bhat a resident of Kremshore Khan Sahib, Budgam Under Section 302 RPC for causing the death of Gulshan Akhtar D/o Ghulam Hassan Sofi Resident of Kremshore.
As per the history of the case, on June 03, 2014, Police Station, Khansahib received information from reliable sources that the dead body of Gulshan Akhtar is lying in Kremshore and by appearance, it looks that she has been killed by strangulation. On receipt of the said information, case FIR was registered under Section 302 RPC and investigation was started.
During the investigation, the site plan was prepared and the dead body was taken into custody/possession by police, photography was conducted, at the place of occurrence some blood-stained grass was collected/seized with the help of the FSL team for the purposes of chemical examination. One blanket was also seized which was used to cover the dead body.
The Dead body was taken to the hospital -for post-mortem, where cloths were seized and one blood stained scarf was also seized. After post-mortem dead body was handed over to legal heirs for last rites. The blood stained grass and scarf was sent to FSL for chemical examination. The statements of witnesses vis-à-vis the seizure were recorded, the order reads.
The order mentions that the trial court examined 21 (twenty one) witnesses. After hearing Qazi Qayoom, learned PP and counsel for the accused, the learned Principal Sessions Judge Srinagar Abdul Rashid Malik observed that the prosecution has cogently and firmly established the circumstances from which the inference of guilt can be drawn.
The circumstances are definite and unerringly point out towards the guilt of the accused. The circumstances cumulatively form the chain, so complete that there is no other explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and the evidence is consistent with the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence.
When after the deceased left the home she was not seen by anybody and later on after two days her body was found on the spot of occurrence and the accused in the disclosure statement has explained the circumstances which left no doubt in the mind of this court that it was the accused who has committed the murder of the deceased.
The Police had no reason to falsely implicate the accused and the accused has failed in examination under Section 342 Cr.P.0 to explain the incriminating circumstances because once the prosecution has discharged the burden of proof, the accused cannot chose to remain silent as adverse inference can be drawn.
The accused has not explained his constant contact with the deceased, the knocking of the windows, providing the mobile phone to the deceased, motivated the deceased to come out of the home, the conversation with the deceased and recovery of the incriminating articles from the possession of the accused.
There is no doubt that mere recovery of the incriminating articles is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused but the recovery is supported by the detailed disclosure statement made by the accused before the Investigating Officer in presence of the Executive Magistrate and the Dy SP. There is not even an iota of evidence that the accused was wrongly implicated.
The Investigating Officer has made all the sincere efforts to unfold the truth. The circumstances in this use are knit brick by brick with the support of the documentary evidence. All the twenty-one witnesses have spoken consistently in support of the prosecution story and their statements inspire the confidence of the court Right from the lodging of the FIR, the arrest of the accused, the disclosure statement of the accused, the recovery of mobile phone, battery, damaged SIM card, the chapel of the deceased, the scarf round the neck of the deceased, the blood-soaked grass, the FSL report, postmortem report and call details point out nothing except the guilt of the accused.
There is not even a single circumstance that point out towards the innocence of the accused. The silence of the accused in the face of the cogent, oral and documentary evidence further strengthens the prosecution story. The accused has failed to explain his innocence in the light of the chain of circumstances established by the prosecution
The Court further observed that in appreciating evidence the approach of the Court must be integrated not truncated or isolated. In other words the integrate of the evidence in totality on the prosecution case or innocence of the accused has to be kept in mind in coming to the conclusion as to the guilt of the accused, the Court has to appreciate, analyze and assess the evidence placed before it by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic value of the witness.
The Court while appreciating the evidence should not lose the site of the realities of the life and cannot afford to take an unrealistic approach by stating in an ivory tower. It is very easy to pass an order of acquittal on the basis of minor points raised in a case by a short judgment, so as to achieve the yardstick of the disposal. Some discrepancies are bound to be there in each and every case while should not weighed that the Courts are wrong. It does not materially affect the prosecution case. In case the discrepancies pointed out are in the realm of pebbles, Court should act upon it, but if the same are boulders, Court should not make an attempt to jump over the same. The proof beyond reasonable doubt is a guideline and guilty-man cannot get away with it, because truth suffers some infirmity when projected through human processes.
Therefore, the evidence produced by the prosecution establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had only intended to kill the deceased after his love affair failed and the motive behind the killing was the refusal of the parents of the deceased to marry the deceased with the accused. The accused strangulated the deceased till she died by wrapping the scarf around her neck and pressed it so hard that the deceased died instantaneously. Therefore, the offence committed by the accused falls under section 302 RPC and the accused is convicted under section 302 RPC accordingly.