Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. In the statement of Ghulam Mohiuddin Lone recorded by the Magistrate second time at the instance of CBI on 27.10.2009 under Section 164-A Cr.PC it is stated that about 5 to 10 days after the death of Neelofar Jan and Asiya Jan, Advocates Abdul Majid Mir, Mohammad Yusuf Bhat, Mushtaq Ahmad Gatoo, Altaf Mohand (petitioner No. 1), and Mubarak (petitioner No. 2) came to his house and they were accompanied by Ali Mohammad Sheikh and brother of Shakeel, namely, Abdul Majid Mir. They all took him to the bridge. He further stated that the aforesaid persons including the petitioners inquired from him about the incident. Though he told them that he did not have the knowledge about the said incident but they took him to Shakeel's residence, where Abdul Hai, father of Neelofar Jan caught hold of his neck and asked him to state the truth. Ghulam Mohiuddin Lone repeated that he did not have the knowledge about the incident but, in the meantime, Advocate Abdul Majid Mir thrashed him and took him to another room, where a lot of other people were also present. He further stated that Abdul Majid Mir told him that if he did not give the statement i.e. "I have seen police vehicle near the bridge", they would burn his house and shop and would eliminate his entire family. He, therefore, stated that due to this intimidation, he made a statement first before the Jan Commission on 09.06.2009 and then before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Shopian on 18.06.2009. He again confirmed that he had no knowledge about the occurrence and had not seen the police vehicle near the bridge nor had he heard any cries of women coming from the said vehicle. He further added that Advocate Abdul Majid Mir had given him the inducement that if he would give the false statement of their choice then he would be provided one shop at the bus stand Shopian and also a good amount of money. Similarly, Abdul Rashid Pampori, another star eye witness whose statement had earlier been recorded under Section 164-A Cr.PC on 18.06.2009 also resiled from the aforesaid statement. He also attributed the false statement made by him earlier under pressure from the accused Advocates. This was revealed by him in his statement which was got recorded by the CBI on 27.10.2009 once again under Section 164-A Cr.PC. In his statement made under Section 164-A Cr.PC on 27.10.2009, Abdul Rashid Pampori stated that he had given a false statement earlier under pressure from witness Ghulam Mohiuddin Lone and police personnel. He also stated that the Advocates of the Shopian Bar had pressurized Ghulam Mohiuddin Lone for giving the said false statement. He, however, deposed that he had not seen any police vehicle parked near the bridge nor had he heard the cries of women coming from the said vehicle.

7. On the basis of aforesaid statements coupled with the statements of Hasina and her husband Azad Ahmad Tureay, the CBI concluded that accused Advocates namely Abdul Majid Mir, Mushtaq Ahmad Gatoo, Mohammad Yusuf Bhat, Altaf Mohand and Mubarak in league with Ali Mohammad Sheikh and Zahoor Ahmad Ahanger induced, assaulted and threatened Ghulam Mohiuddin Lone and others to make false statements implicating the police/security forces in the commission of offence of rape and murder of the deceased ladies. It was concluded by the investigation that this was done in furtherance of conspiracy to defame the police personnel. Ghulam Mohiuddin Lone and Abdul Rashid Pampori had been compelled to make false statements before the Jan Commission as well as CJM Shopian when their statements were recorded under Section 164-A Cr.PC. The investigation further concluded that the accused Advocates had also tried to induce Hasina and her husband Azad Ahmad Tureay to make similar statements. In nutshell, the investigation by the CBI concluded as under:-

13. Elaborating his arguments, learned Senior Counsel would submit that the only incriminating evidence that has been collected by the CBI during its investigation is the statement of Ghulam Mohiuddin Lone recorded before the Judicial Magistrate on 27.10.2009 at the instance of CBI in which the aforesaid witness resiled from his earlier statement, that too, recorded under Section 164- A Cr.PC before CJM Shopian on 18.06.2009. In the second statement recorded at the instance of CBI, the aforesaid witness stated that he was made to make the false statement earlier due to pressure of the petitioners and other accused persons. He has in particular named Advocate Abdul Majid Mir, who thrashed him and took him to another room where a lot of persons were present who all rebuked him. He, however, has not directly implicated the petitioners herein for inducing, threatening or pressurizing him to make the false statement, argues the learned counsel for the petitioners. The statement of witness Ghulam Mohiuddin Lone supported by the statement of Abdul Rashid Pampori recorded second time at the instance of CBI does not in any manner, implicate the petitioners in the conspiracy to create false evidence to implicate the police/security personnel in a false case of rape and murder of the deceased ladies, submits learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners also pointed out the manner in which the second statement was got recorded by the CBI before the Magistrate. He vehemently assails the veracity of the second statement and would argue that as a matter of fact, the second statement was induced by the CBI for shielding the police personnel, who as per the first statement of these witnesses were clearly involved in the commission of offence under Sections 302, 376 RPC etc.

22. In the light of the aforesaid, I have carefully examined the evidence, particularly the one collected by the respondents to prove the involvement of the petitioners in fabricating/creating false evidence by pressurizing, inducing and threatening the eye witnesses to make false depositions implicating the police/security personnel in the commission of offences of rape and murder of the deceased ladies.

23. From the perusal of statements of two star witnesses, namely, Ghulam Mohiuddin Lone and Abdul Rashid Pampori, got recorded by the CBI before the Judicial Magistrate under Section 164-A Cr.PC, I find that there is sufficient evidence against the petitioners that they alongwith others threatened and induced Ghulam Mohiuddin Lone and Abdul Rashid Pampori to give false evidence, first before the Jan Commission and then before the CJM Shopian when their statements under Section 164-A Cr.PC were got recorded by the police station, Shopian to implicate the personnel of police/security so as to procure their conviction of capital offence. The ingredients of Section 195-A RPC are, therefore, met. For facility of reference, Section 195-A RPC is reproduced hereunder:-