Views
3 years ago

Crl.AppealNo.2295-2296of2010

Crl.AppealNo.2295-2296of2010

Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -80-trousers of the fidayeens cannot be believed as thereis no evidence to support the same and on thecontrary, the receipt voucher of the articlescollected from the fidayeens only listed two‘handwritten letters in Urdu’ and there was no mentionof the pouch whatsoever.Delay in recording statements of accomplices andconfessional statements of the accused persons.60. The learned senior counsel, Mr. A. Sharan hadsubmitted that the preliminary investigation of thecase was initially carried out by the police from27.09.2002 and thereafter, the investigation washanded over to the ATS on 03.10.2002. After the matterwas investigated for a year, it was transferred to theCrime Branch on 28.08.2003 and surprisingly, on thevery next day i.e, 29.08.2003, all the accusedpersons, except A-6 were arrested and on 30.08.2003,

Crl.A.Nos.2295-2296 of 2010 -81-the provisions of POTA were invoked by the CrimeBranch against them.61. It was further contended by him that this made theprosecution story highly improbable and the fact thatthe accused persons were apprehended a year after theincident made the conduct of the prosecution highlydoubtful and totally unreliable.It was further contended by him that it is a wellsettled principle of law that there should not be aninordinate delay in the recording of the statements ofthe accomplices by the police. PW-50, PW-51, PW-52 andPW-56 had stated in their depositions that theirstatements were recorded around the 7 th or 8 th month of2003. Thus, this inordinate delay leads one to draw anadverse inference and also leads one to believe thatthe police had sufficient time to fabricate the storyand rope in the accused persons falsely in this case.Reliance was placed by the learned senior counsel on

TIME TO ACT - CSIR
148LZWA
vdyTh
Operation Marble
RECORDING
HamMUN 2012 Study Guide_HRC
sqZGgcLN
TP_051718
GibLive! - Free2Read
instructions
HRC_in_2016
edmc-03136880
rzz-agm-2015