IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must prove charges beyond a reasonable doubt, and failures in evidence collection and witness testimony can lead to acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

Mohd. Akram Chowdhary, J.

1. Appellant-State has preferred this criminal acquittal appeal against the judgment dated 07.12.2011 ('impugned judgment') passed by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu ('Trial Court') in Case No. 88/2006 titled 'State v. Bashir Ahmed & Ors.', arising out of FIR No. 169/2004 registered at Police Station Pacca Danga, Jammu for the commission of offences punishable under sections 120-B/121/121-A/122/153A RPC read with Sections 4/5 Explosive Substances Act and 7/25 Arms Act asserting therein that the respondents who were proved to have committed offences of which they were charged, had been acquitted illegally.

2. The impugned judgment whereby respondents were acquitted of the charges framed against them has been assailed on the grounds that the respondents who were active members of a militant organization namely Lashkar-e-Taiba, at the behest of Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) Agency were bent upon to create unrest in the State of Jammu and Kashmir and had been indulging in the acts of sabotage and terrorist activities to dislodge the State of Jammu and Kashmir and Central Governments; that the prosecution had proved the case against the respondents that they had been found sitting and engaged in making of a conspiracy at Manda forests on 28.08.2004 and during search two chinese grenades were recovered from respondent Mohd. Bashir, one pistol from Mohd. Shafi, one live hand grenade from Javed Ahmed, one chinese grenade from Abdul Rehman, two Chinese grenades from Abdul Rashid besides one letter written in Urdu by District Commander of Lashkar-e-Taiba and a letter pad of the said organization were recovered from their possession; that the impugned judgment is contrary to law, against the facts of the case and passed in a mechanical manner without appreciating the circumstantial evidence as well as the other evidence on record despite there being sufficient evidence to connect the respondents with the commission of the offences. As such, the judgment on all these counts was bad in the eyes of law and liable to be set-aside. It was prayed to allow the appeal, set-aside the impugned judgment and respondents be convicted and sentenced in accordance with law.

3. Learned Dy. AG for the appellant, while reiterating the grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal assailing the impugned judgment, has further argued that the trial court has decided the case in a mechanical manner without appreciating the evidence brought on record by the prosecution in its right perspective and that with the acquittal of the respondents, there has been miscarriage of justice which is required to be corrected by this court while exercising the appellate jurisdiction. It was prayed that the appeal be allowed and the respondents be convicted of the offences of which they were charged and sentenced with exemplary and deterrent punishment.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, argued that the prosecution had miserably failed to bring home the charge against the respondents and the trial court had decided the case by passing a very reasoned judgment as the prosecution had failed to connect the accused with the commission of the offences of which they were charged. He further argued that neither seizure of the arms/explosive material was proved, nor that material was produced before the court and that the prosecution witnesses had also failed to identify any of the accused in the court while being examined. Therefore, in absence of proof of the seizure memo with regard to recovery and seizure of the weapon and the explosive material, from the possession of the accused/respondents and they also not having been identified by any of the witnesses of the prosecution, during trial were sufficient grounds to record acquittal of the respondents. He has further argued that initially the FIR was registered by the police for many of the offences including waging of war, besides the offences punisha