‘Benefit of doubt’: Court acquits three in 2020 killing of J&K BJP leader Waseem Bari
The investigators had also alleged that the three accused had “assisted the aforesaid terrorists and were liable under Section 39 of the UAPA.” In the chargesheet, 17 witnesses were named and were examined by the court in the course of the trial.
On May 1, 2012, both the complainant, advocate Ritu Kumar, and the accused were present in the Jharkhand High Court premises
A special NIA court in Bandipora acquitted three locals in the case of the killing of a BJP leader Waseem Bari in 2020, his father and brother. In its order issued Wednesday, the court observed that the prosecution had failed to prove the case against accused Abrar Gulzar Khan, Muneer Ahmad Sheikh, and Mohammad Waqar Lone.
Bari was the Bandipora district president for the BJP at the time.
Advertisement
In July 2020, “unidentified terrorists” had entered the residential premises and shop of Sheikh Waseem Bari, at Muslimabad Bandipora and opened indiscriminate fire. All three had died in the shooting. After the initial investigation, police had stated that the attack had been carried out by members affiliated with Lashkar-e-Taiba and Tehreek-ul-Mujahideen.
The investigators had also alleged that the three accused had “assisted the aforesaid terrorists and were liable under Section 39 of the UAPA.” In the chargesheet, 17 witnesses were named and were examined by the court in the course of the trial.
The four persons — Abid Rashid Dar, Azad Ahmad Shah, Abu Usman (a foreign terrorist), and Sajjad Ahmad Mir — were alleged to have been directly involved in executing the attack and declared wanted.
Advertisement
While Usman and Sajjad Mir were killed in an encounter with security forces at Kreeri, Baramulla; Dar and Shah could not be arrested as they had joined terrorist outfits and went absconding, according to the order.
The court order notes that the offence under Section 39 “cannot be committed accidentally, negligently, or even recklessly”. It can only be committed intentionally with the specific and directed mental state of intending to further the activity of a terrorist organisation. Therefore, the prosecution “must establish, through admissible and reliable evidence, the specific intention to further the specific activities of the specific terrorist organization named.”
In his order, judge Mir Wajahat emphasised that the prosecution has not proved the allegations against the accused “to the required standard,” and that the accused are entitled to acquittal by benefit of doubt.
The order also states that the investigation in the case revealed significant deficiencies — some procedural, some evidentiary, some potentially going to the integrity of the investigative process itself.
On May 1, 2012, both the complainant, advocate Ritu Kumar, and the accused were present in the Jharkhand High Court premises
Share
