Three acquitted in murder case of Ex-minister’s son - watsupptoday.com
Three acquitted in murder case of Ex-minister’s son
Posted 20 Jan 2018 04:15 PM

Agencies
2nd Additional Sessions Judge Jammu Pawan Dev Kotwal on Friday acquitted Irfan Mehmood, Kamran Rouf and Azhar Ahmed, who were allegedly involved in murder of Ex-Minister Lal Mohammad Sabar’s son case.
According to the police case, on October 13, 2008, Police Post Manwal received a telephonic message from Police Control Room that dead body of Murtaza Sabar, son of Lal Mohammad Sabar, resident of Mendhar (Poonch) at present House No.167/77 Gujjar Nagar, Jammu, was lying at Akhal Morh, Surinsar, Tehsil and District Jammu and since the death has occurred in suspicious circumstances, the dead body is to be shifted to the mortuary of Jammu Hospital and in this regard, an officer should be deputed for further action. The accused persons to eliminate deceased took him to Surinsar on the pretext of picnic and since they were inimical to the deceased because of girls, they mixed some poisonous substance in the liquor of the deceased and administered him as a result of which he died at Akhal Morh and the accused persons knowing the death of the deceased, left him there and came to Jammu, but then again went to the spot to hide their involvement. The investigating agency found that the deceased was having illicit relations with daughter of Sajid Khan, neighbour of Irfan Mehmood, which annoyed the aforesaid accused and he conspired with other accused persons. Police presented instant charge-sheet against the accused persons for the offences under Sections 302 and 34 RPC.
The court after hearing Advocate R.K Kotwal for the accused persons observed that the evidence led by prosecution failed to establish any of the relevant incriminating circumstance beyond every shadow of doubt and though, the evidence raises some suspicion as to the complicity of the accused in the commission of crime, but it is well settled law that to warrant conviction against the accused, prosecution has to prove case beyond reasonable doubts and the suspicion howsoever strong it may be does not take place of proof beyond reasonable doubts, especially in the case of present nature, where the punishment provided is either death penalty or in alternative imprisonment for life. The aforesaid material only points the needle of suspicion towards the appellant and nothing more. Suspicion, however, is no substitute for proof and in criminal law the prosecution has to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. With these observations, Court acquitted all the accused.

Leave a comment: (Your email will not be published)