Nowshera acid attack case: Court defers hearing till March 4

KT NEWS SERVICE. Dated: 2/11/2017 1:54:01 PM

SRINAGAR, Feb 10: A city court today deferred hearing in acid attack case in which a female law student was disfigured at Nowshera in 2014 till March 4.
Sources in the court of principal district and session’s judge said that the prosecution could not produce witnesses for deposing before the court because of law and strike call extended by the separatist leadership in Srinagar.
“The accused were also not brought before the court because of the tension,” sources added further.
On December 2, 2015, Muneer Ahmad War, a Kupwara shopkeeper selling sports and stationary items besides chemicals for the laboratories was put to cross examination as a prosecution witness.
During his cross examination, War had admitted that he sold acid to the two accused Mohammad Omar and Irshad Ahmad Wani in 2014.
The victim in the matter, a law student was grievously injured in the attack near Nowshera on the outskirts of Srinagar on December 11, 2014. Police filed FIR (136/2014) at police station Soura and started investigation. A fortnight after the attack, the two accused was arrested for their alleged involvement in the incident.
Under Section 326A RPC, an accused if convicted can be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to life. It further provides that accused shall also be liable to pay compensation adequate to meet at least the medical expenses incurred by the victim. Sections 120B and 201 provide for separate punishments.
While charging the duo, the court turned down the argument by their counsel that no sufficient grounds exist for proceeding against the duo as “mere fallacy.” The judge also rejected the contention by counsel for Omar regarding offence under section 201 RPC as misconceived.
On November 12, 2015 the counsel of the accused Mohammad Omar, concluded cross examination of the victim. On November 4, 2015 after hearing the matter for four consecutive days the court had heard and recorded the statement of the victim girl in the matter.
The court of principal district and session’s judge had heard and recorded statement of Sub Inspector Mohammad Yousuf in the matter on October 17, 2015.
Yousuf, posted in Lal Bazar police station, was part of a Special Investigation Officer (SIT) that probed the acid attack case.
The trial of the matter started on May 5, 2015 and earlier the court of Principal District and Sessions Judge Srinagar had charged the two accused Irshad Ahmad Wani alias Sunny and Mohammad Omar—under RPC sections of 326A (voluntarily throwing acid), 120B (criminal conspiracy), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence).
“On the basis of material produced by the investigating agency, I am of the opinion that there is a ground to presume that the accused have committed (the) offence,” the court had said while framing the charges against the two accused who disfigured the victims’ face here last year.
Advocate Yawar Khan, the defence counsel had submitted that offence u/s 201 RPC cannot be attributed to the accused as the word “whoever” occurring in the relevant section would be attracted viz-a-viz the person other than the principal accused.
“The purpose of charge is to tell accused person as precisely and concisely as possible of the matter with which he is charged and conveyed him with sufficient clearness and certainty what the prosecution intends to prove against him and of which he will have to clear himself. Framing of charge is vital to a criminal trial and so has to be carefully attended,” the court said and gave a detailed summer about the principles which govern framing of charge against the accused or discharge.
“The Judge while considering the question of framing the charge has the undoubted power to shift weight of the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case,” the court said.
The court, the judge said, cannot act merely as post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court.
“However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and the evidence weighed as if trial has been concluded,” the court said. The court charged the duo when they pleaded not guilty after the charge sheet was read over to them.

 

Video

The Gaza Crisis and the Global Fallout... Read More
 

FACEBOOK

 

Daily horoscope

 

Weather