The judgment emphasizes strict adherence to legal procedures during investigations, particularly regarding the admissibility of confessions and the burden of evidence in criminal cases.

JUDGMENT

Sanjay-Parihar-(J)

1. Through the medium of this appeal challenge is thrown to acquittal of respondents in case FIR 35/2020 of PS Hajin u/s 13, 18, 20, 23, 39 ULA(P) Act, 7/25 Arms Act 120-B 124-A of IPC passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bandipora (Incharge Special Judge under NIA Act), [‘the trial Court’].

2. The appellant claims that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence and has improperly discredited the statement of the prosecution witnesses. It has placed reliance on such contradictions which were immaterial and did not blow-away the prosecution case. The trial Court has landed in error by improper interpretation of disclosure memos recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and had disbelieved such disclosure and recovery. Whereas, the recoveries were proved to be correct and led to the admission of fact by the respondents to form a complete chain linking them to the offences.

3. Briefly stating, the case put up against the respondents happen to be that, on 6^th September 2020, PS Hajin received information from reliable sources that unknown associates of LeT Organisation have hoisted Pakistani National Flag to spread terror among general public and in order to motivate youth against security and sovereignty of India, which all was at the behest of one local militant Saleem Parray @ Saleem Billa who had co-hoisted with foreign associate militants namely Hamza, Abu Ismail and Haider and on the national flag of Pakistan the words “Pakistan se Rishta Kya and Shaheedo-se- Rishta Kya” Laillah Illallah”. This led to registration of FIR 35/2020 under Section 124-A IPC and 13 UAP Act and it was found that the respondent after hatching conspiracy had purchased green and white cloth from Main Market Hajin prepared a Pakistani National Flag at the residential premises of respondents Imtiyaz Ahmad Sheikh by using his sewing machine which came to be recovered. Respondent No. 1-Tanveer Ahmad disclosed his association with Let Organization as OGW and was providing logistic support to the local militant Saleem Parray. Whereas, respondent Tanveer Ahmad Mir also gave recovery of one hand-grenade claimed to have been provided to him by the said Saleem Parray. Accordingly, respondents were challaned for offences u/s

13, 18, 20, 23, 39 ULA(P) Act, 7/25 Arms Act 120-B 124-A of IPC and as regards Mohammad Saleem Parray, he was declared absconder.

4. Based on the evidence produced by the prosecution, the trial court found that the evidence on record was not sufficient to fasten the criminal liability on the accused persons who deserve a benefit of doubt in the light of the contradictions and other material lacuna in the case of the prosecution. The trial court during the course of trial has found that though there is no doubt regarding the offence in the present case which is against the security and sovereignty of the country but at the same time observed that the investigating agency was under bounden duty to investigate the matter within the legal framework as contained under the procedure, meaning thereby if a thing is required to be done under law in a particular manner and if there is any deviation from the said procedure, the same will always not be in the best interest of dispensation of criminal justice. Therefore, the great sense of responsibility and efficiency is required for conducting investigation in such type of cases which are of vast importance of national i