JAMMU: 3rd Additional Sessions Judge Jammu Sunit Gupta on Tuesday framed charges against seven Over Ground Workers (OGWs) of Hizbul Mujahideen (HM) while as discharged three others. Moreover, the court passed strictures against the Investigating Officer and issued directions for departmental inquiry against him.
The charges against Bashir Ahmed, Wali Mohd, Ghulam Nabi, Mohd Ramzan and Saddam Hussain have been framed for the offences under Sections 13/19/39 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act while as charges against Khazar Mohd and Mohd Hassan have been framed for the offences under Sections 13/23 UA(P) Act and 3/25 Arms Act. The accused who have been discharged are Zahoor Ahmed, Bashir Ahmed and Yassir Hussain. All these persons were arrested in Kishtwar early this year for working as Over Ground Workers of HM and providing all kinds of support to the militants. While discharging/ framing of charges, 3rd Additional Sessions Judge Jammu (Special Judge under Section 22 of NIA Act) Sunit Gupta observed, “I would like to register my reservations and dissatisfaction against the investigating officer of the present case who appeared to have conducted the investigation in the present case in very perfunctory and unprofessional manner”.
“The quality of the investigation does no where speaks about the fact that the investigation in the present case has been conducted by gazetted officer of the Rank of DySP of Police Department”, the court said, adding “the Investigating Officer Sunny Gupta, DySP (HQ) Kishtwar has conducted the investigation in such a lethargic and sluggish manner that he had not taken even a little pain to search for the evidence in the present case”. “We find that a much better investigation could be conducted by even a Head Constable in comparison to the investigation conducted in the present case by Sunny Gupta, DySP.
At the time of registration of FIR, there was a clear allegation that accused persons used to provide hide outs and harbour the categorized militants of HM”, the court said, adding “despite the arrest of all the said accused persons, the Investigating Officer in the present case has not bothered to seize the mobile phones of any of the accused persons and he has not took any pain to collect the CDRs of their mobile phones and their connectivity with the categorized terrorists”. “The Investigating Officer in the present case has only acted as spectator and he had only got the statements of the some of the witnesses recorded either under Section 161 or under Section 164 CrPC. Besides this, he had not moved even an inch in the investigation of the case. I am quite surprise that how Sunny Gupta has qualified the administrative examination and become DySP in the Police Department as I have not been able to find him suitable in the basic intellect of the person”, the Judge said.
“From the perusal of the file, I just find that he has also arrayed Mohd Ramzan as one of the accused in the present case. But the accused Mohd Ramzan was already in judicial custody in another case vide FIR 268/2019 of P/S Kishtwar at the time when the present FIR was registered”, the Judge further said, adding “it is also interesting to note that the investigation in FIR No 268/2019 was also conducted by the same officer”. The court said, “this kind of lapse on the part of Investigating Officer is highly depreciable and should not be tolerated. Similarly, while investigating FIR No 268/2019, the same officer acted in the same like manner and demolish the said case as he has demolished the present case”. The Judge said, “due to his sheer incompetency and negligence, this court was forced to discharge some of the accused persons in the earlier case vide FIR No 268/2019 entitled State V/S Tariq Hussain & Ors and in the present case also this court is forced to discharge three accused persons from the present charge sheet”.
Accordingly, the court strongly recommended that a departmental enquiry should be initiated against the DySP Sunny Gupta and he should be asked that why and under what circumstances he had not collected the real evidence in these cases and left over the important aspects.
“He should also be asked that how and under what circumstances he had implicated and charge sheeted the accused Zahoor Ahmed, against whom no evidence was available with him even at the time of registration of FIR as well as, at the time when the charge sheet was presented against him and other accused persons”, the court said and directed the Inspector General of Police to conduct a departmental enquiry against the delinquent police officer.
