Excelsior Correspondent
Srinagar, Apr 6: High Court today set aside the sentence awarded by trial court to a police official on corruption charges and acquitted him.
Underscoring that the prosecution has failed to prove the allegation against the appellant the High Court quashed the judgment of trial court whereby appellant-accused was convicted.
“The appeal, in the circumstances, succeeds and is allowed as such. The impugned judgment is reversed along with the order of conviction, sentence and the accused/appellant is set free of the charges leveled against him and he is acquitted. Bail bonds shall stand discharged”, Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey directed.
Justice Magrey said that in his considered view the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt against the accused/appellant beyond the reasonable shadow of doubt.
The criminal appeal was filed by one Abdul Rahim Mir working in Jammu and Kashmir Armed Police as 2nd in Command of the Company ‘C’ of 6th Bn against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Special Judge, Anticorruption, Kashmir, Srinagar.
Mir was convicted by the trial court in FIR No. 47/2006 of Police Station Vigilance Organization Kashmir for the commission of offences punishable under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, for demanding bribe from his subordinate in order to sanction leave in his favour.
High Court observed that the menace of corruption is eating the very vitals of our society; in fact it is working as one of the biggest hurdles in our march to progress. “It needs a collective effort, as a society, to stand up and curb this nuisance as the societal gains can see the light of the day only when the environment is made corruption free”, Justice Magrey added.
Senior counsel Bashir Ahmad Bashir appearing on behalf of appellant while arguing at length before the court submitted the trial court judgment is bad in law and referred to the lacunas and errors in the evidence produced by the prosecution against the appellant before the trial court on the basis of which the conviction has been ordered.
In rebuttal to the arguments of appellant counsel, State counsel submitted before the court that minor infirmities will not come into play and would be of no use to demolish the prosecution case if a conclusion is arrived at that the alleged trap was laid fairly.
Court said that in trap cases ordinarily the courts adopt a confined approach vis-à-vis demand; payment; acceptance and recovery of the bribe amount, being the essential ingredients, but in the instant case when the entry of the independent witness in the story is doubtful, the proving of such ingredients, on the basis of evidence corroborated by him, is unquestionably rendered immaterial because except for him all other members of the team are partisan witnesses, therefore, not reliable.
Follow our WhatsApp channel