SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
FAROOQ AHMAD – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR (HOME DEPTT) – Respondent
CRA 41/2014



Advocates:
['M A QAYOOM', '', 'S T HUSSAIN SR ADV', 'NIDA NAZIR', 'JAVID SATHOO', '', 'REKHA WANGNOO', 'M A CHASHOO AAG', 'ASIFA PADROO AAG']

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT SRINAGAR

CRA No. 9900001/2015

CrlM No. 395/2022

c/w

Crl Ref(L) No. 04/2022

Reserved on:- 07.09.2022

Pronounced on:- 26.09.2022

Farooq Ahmad

…Appellant(s)

Through: Mr. S.T.Hussain, Sr. Advocate with

Ms. Nida Nazir, Advocate.

Vs.

State of Jammu & Kashmir

…Respondent(s)

Through: Ms. Asifa Padroo, AAG with

Ms. Rekha Wangnoo, GA.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALI MOHAMMAD MAGREY, JUDGE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MD. AKRAM CHOWDHARY, JUDGE

JUDGMENT

(Per Chowdhary, J)

1. Appellant namely Farooq Ahmad was convicted for the commission

of offence punishable under Section 302 RPC for committing

murder of one Aijaz Ahmed S/O Fazal ullah Khan R/O Basti

Bhaderwah and for the commission of attempt to murder punishable

under Section 307 RPC for injuring Arshad Ahmed S/O Fazal ullah

Khan R/O Basti Bhaderwah on 19.10.2000 at 9.30 PM, by the court

of learned Sessions Judge Bhaderwah vide judgment dated

25.03.2015 and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and

fine of Rs.50,000/-, and in case of default of payment of fine he was

ordered for further simple imprisonment of one year, besides to

P a g e | 2

undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs.5000/-

under Section 307 RPC and in default of payment of fine he was

ordered for further simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. The First Information Report (FIR) was received at the Police

Station Bhaderwah on 19.10.2000 from some source that at 9.30

PM, some unknown militants after hatching a conspiracy barged into

the house of one Fazal ullah Khan at Basti Bhaderwah with arms and

ammunition and in order to commit murder of his sons Aijaz Ahmed

and Arshad Ahmed, fired indiscriminately, rendered both of them

seriously injured due to which Aijaz Ahmed succumbed to his

injuries on spot, whileas, Arshad Ahmed was rushed to the hospital

for treatment.

3. On the basis of this report a case was registered vide FIR

No.222/2000 for the commission of offences punishable under

Sections 302/307/326/120-B RPC and 7/27 Arms Act and the

investigation was commenced. During the course of investigation,

the I.O visited the hospital where injury form of the injured Arshad

Ahmed was filled and thereafter I.O proceeded to the place of

occurrence and prepared a site place, custody of the body of the

deceased Aijaz Ahmed was taken over for conducting post mortem

which was later on handed over to his legal heirs.

4. After investigation of the case, the charge-sheet for the commission

of offences punishable under Sections 302/307/326/120-B RPC and

7/27 Arms Act was laid in the court of law against Farooq Ahmad @

Fareed code Khalid S/O Abdul Rashid Sheikh R/O Basti Tehsil

P a g e | 3

Bhaderwah and Tariq Usmani code Hamza S/O Gh. Qadir Sheikh

R/O Dandi Tehsil Bhaderwah.

5. After committal of the case to the trial court the file was consigned

to records on 23.05.2002 as the Public Prosecutor had chosen not to

examine any prosecution witness in the absence of accused. The

proceedings were, however, revived in the month of April 2009,

when accused Farooq Ahmad @ Fareed code Khalid (appellant

herein) was arrested and produced before the court, whereas, the

other accused namely Tariq Usmani was reported to have been killed

in an encounter with the security forces.

6. The appellant- accused was charge-sheeted for the commission of

aforementioned offences vide order dated 16.05.2009, who pleading

innocence, denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

7. Prosecution, in order to prove its case to bring home the charge

against the appellant-accused, examined 14 witnesses. The

incriminating evidence led by the prosecution against t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top