In 2 decade old disappearance case, B’la Court sentences former renegade to 10 years imprisonment

In 2 decade old disappearance case, B’la Court sentences former renegade to 10 years imprisonment

Baramulla: A court in Baramulla on Friday sentensed a former renegade to 10 yers in jail and imposed a fine of Rs 50,000 for kidnapping in order to murder a personof Tragpora area in Sopre in 2001.
The Ist Additional Sessions Judge Baramulla Naseer Ahmad Dar convicted one of the accused namely Abdul Qayoom Tantray for the offences punishable under Section 364 RPC and sentenced him the rigorous imprisonment of ten years and fine to the tune of Rs 50,000 which shall be paid to the complainant of the case as compensation. In case of default of the fine, the convict shall further undergo three months simple imprisonment.
However the period undergone by the convict during the course of investigation and trial of the case shall be set off against the imprisonment of sentence awarded against him.
As per the details of the case, the complainant on 22-06-2002 lodged a written report in Police Station Sopore to this effect that on 22-12-2001 the son of the complainant namely Manzoor Ahmad Wani S/O Abdul Rahim Wani R/O Tragpora was picked up by an army officer who was accompanied by two renegades namely Ab Qayoom Tantray S/O Abdul Sattar Tantray R/O Rohama and Gh Ahmad Malik @ Jahangir R/O Buden Tehsil Sopore.
It is stated that the complainant repeatedly requested the concerned Army Camp for release of his son but he was not released. The complainant has no whereabouts of his son and the complainant has approached several officers but till date nothing was heard about her son.
Upon receiving this complaint a case bearing FIR No. 126/2002 U/Ss 364 RPC was registered in the Police Station Sopore. During the investigation of the case the investigating agency recorded the statements of 25 witnesses and apprehends the accused namely Ab Qayoom Tantray after a gap of four years from the date of occurence and from his possession a pistol and some rounds were recovered.
During the investigation of the case it came to fore that the accused Ghulam Ahmad Malik aka Jahangir was killed by unknown gunmen during the intervening night of 27/28 April 2003. The investigating agency approached the concerned higher authorities for handing over the army officer for questioning but he was not produced before the investigating agency.
The SHO P/S Sopore at the time of presentation of challan mentioned this fact that after obtaining the necessary sanction from the Government the supplementary challan will be submitted against the army officer in the court. The investigating agency relying on the evidence collected, completed the investigation of the case U/S 364, 302, 201 RPC, 7/25 A. Act against the accused Ab Qayoom Tantray and U/S 364, 302, 348,109,201 RPC against accused Gh Ahmad Malik @ Jahangir (Deceased) and army officer, whileas offence punishable U/Ss 348, 109 RPC was established against the another accused namely Gulzar Ahmad Bhat @ Setha S/O Mohammad Sultan Bhat R/O Rohama who was arrayed as accused in the case on the basis of statements of witnesses recorded by the investigating agency. The challan of the case was presented before the court on 08-09-2006. The charges were framed against the accused persons on 14-11- 2006, the accused did not admit the guilt, as such, the prosecution was directed to adduce the evidence in support of the charge. The prosecution produced and examined all the cited 30 PW’s in the case.
After hearing both the parties and appreciating the evidence the court of 1st Addl. Sessions Judge Baramulla held accused No. 1 namely Ab Qayoom Tantray guilty for the offence punishable U/S 364 RPC and acquitted him from the offences punishable U/S 302,201,348,109 RPC, 7/25 A.Act. The Court acquitted the accused No. 2 namely Gulzar Ahmad Bhat aka Setha from the offence 348,109 RPC. The Court further held that the army officer, who belongs to 28 RR appears to be the main accused in the case but till date neither the prosecution nor I/O have been able to produce a supplementary charge sheet against the said person before the Court nor they have obtained the requisite sanction for his prosecution.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.