Man acquitted in 2018 Srinagar murder case over lack of evidence

Mudasir Yaqoob

Srinagar, Nov 24: The Principal Sessions Court, Srinagar, has acquitted a man accused of murder, citing significant gaps in prosecution evidence and contradictory witness statements.

After hearing prosecution and defence counsel Advocate Marouf Khan, Principal Sessions Judge Jaffer Hussain Beg said that prosecution has failed to connect the accused with crime.

The accused, Javaid Iqbal Gojar, was charged with the murder of Abdul Rashid Sheikh, whose decomposed body was discovered in a rented accommodation in Srinagar on the eve of Eid festival in 2018.

The police had claimed that Gojar killed Sheikh using a 5 kg gas cylinder after a dispute over Rs. 3.80 lakh allegedly paid for securing a government job.

In its 9-page judgment, the court noted that the prosecution’s case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, primarily hinging on the accused’s alleged disclosure statement.

However, the court found serious discrepancies in the testimonies of key witnesses regarding this crucial piece of evidence.

“The prosecution has failed to connect the accused with the crime,” the court observed, pointing out that of the three witnesses meant to prove the disclosure statement, one denied its existence entirely, while another contradicted the police version of events.

The case began when Mohammed Amin Ahanger, the landlord, discovered Sheikh’s decomposed body in a rented room. Initially registered as an accidental death under Section 174 CrPC, the case was later converted to a murder investigation under Section 302 RPC at Police Station Kralkhud.

The prosecution produced 19 witnesses, but the court found that 14 witnesses “have not stated even a single word against the accused person.”

A witness, who conducted the initial inquiry, was deemed an “interested witness” by the court, noting that his testimony lacked corroboration.

Earlier, defence counsel, Advocate Marouf Khan vehemently opposed the prosecution arguments and submitted that the prosecution had not brought any evidence on record that would prove the guilt of the accused. He further pointed out gaps in the prosecution evidence and contradictory statements of witnesses, which ultimately proved crucial to the case’s outcome.