STATE Vs. OBAID UL AHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE is a delay of 111 days in filing the petition. Learned counsel for the Respondent has no objection to the condonation of delay. The delay is accordingly condoned for the reasons as mentioned in the application. CRL.L.P. No.368/2010

(2.) THE State seeks leave to file an Appeal against the judgment and order dated 18.02.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) whereby the Respondent Obaid-ul-Ahad was acquitted of the charges under Section 121/121- A/122/123/120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.

(3.) THE Respondent was acquitted by the Trial Court on the ground that the call records of the Respondent would show that there was a talk of just one second on the mobile number 9419061643 of the Respondent with the purported cell number of Sajjad Hussain Sheikh. It was observed that as per the call details many calls were made on the landline number of the Respondent from Sajjad Hussain Sheikh, but there was no evidence on record that the Respondent had himself answered the calls. THE Trial Court observed that no satisfactory evidence was produced as to how the Respondent was joined in the inquiry/investigation. PW-17 SI Umesh Barthwal and PW-23 Inspector Lalit Mohan were silent about the service of the notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. on the Respondent on 16.06.2005 (when the Respondent is alleged to have reached Delhi from Srinagar). THE Trial Court further held that the prosecution had failed to prove the conversation between Sajjad Hussain Sheikh and the Respondent as PW-20 Deepak Kumar Tanwar from CFSL New Delhi had declined to give any report on the ground that the questioned conversation and specimen voice of the Respondent was in Kashmiri (language) and since he was not conversant with the language, he was unable to give any opinion. THE Trial Court noticed that PW-24 Dr. C.P. Singh found the conversation and the specimen voice in Hindi which was contrary to the prosecution version and thus, the report given by PW-24 Dr. C.P.Singh, another expert could not be relied upon. THE Trial Court thus concluded that merely because the Respondent had arrived from Srinagar to Delhi, no inference of the Respondent's carrying the consignment to Kashmir for handing it over for terrorist activities to other persons could be drawn. Thus, the Respondent was acquitted giving him the benefit of doubt.