Bandipora, March 26: A Special Court in Bandipora on Wednesday sentenced two Over Ground Workers (OGWs) of banned terrorist organisation-Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) to 28 years’ rigorous imprisonment each after convicting them under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and the Arms Act in a 2020 case linked to recovery of prohibited arms in Hajin.
District and Sessions Judge Mir Wajahat, who also functions as Special Judge for UAPA cases at Bandipora, sentenced Mudasir Ahmad Khawja and Abdul Qayoum Margoo- both residents of Sadunara to 28 years’ rigorous imprisonment under both provisions.
Both were convicted and sentenced to 14 years imprisonment each under Section 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and under Section 7 read with Section 25(1A) of the Arms Act, 1959.
“Both sentences shall run concurrently. The effective operative sentence for each accused is rigorous imprisonment for fourteen years,” reads the judgement.
Each convict was also fined Rs. 10,000 on both counts, with one month’s simple imprisonment in default. The court granted set-off for the period already spent in custody since July 12, 2020.
Another accused -Ishaq Ahmad Dar was, however, acquitted of all charges framed against him — under Section 23 and Section 39 of the UAPA and under Sections 7/25 of the Arms Act. Court stated that the prosecution failed to provide proof of the foundational recovery attributed to him and directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
The case arose out of FIR No. 09/2020 registered at Police Station Hajin under various provisions of the UAPA and the Arms Act.
Earlier court held both the accused under section 23 of the UAPA and Section 7 read with Section 25(1A) of the Arms Act while acquitting them of the charges under Section 39 of the UAPA and prononuced the quntum of sentence on wednesday. However court acquitted both accused of the charge under Section 39 of the UAPA.
According to the prosecution, the convicted OGWs of LeT led the police to a forest area in Hajin and identified a buried pit from which one live hand grenade, 25 live AK-47 rounds, one AK-47 magazine and one UBGL thrower were recovered.
The court held that the recovery was made on the joint identification of the two accused, who demonstrated precise knowledge of the concealed location.
The prosecution argued for a sentence towards the higher end of the statutory range, citing the nature of the recovered material and the presence of Lashkar-e-Taiba in the area during the relevant period.
The defence, appearing for both accused, sought leniency on grounds including their age, lack of prior criminal record, family responsibilities, and the fact that they had been in custody for over five years.The defence also contended that Section 23 of the UAPA and Section 25(1A) of the Arms Act were founded on the same act of possession and that imposing separate sentences would amount to double punishment.
The court rejected this contention, holding that Section 23 of the UAPA requires proof of an additional ingredient — intent to aid a terrorist organisation — which is not required under the Arms Act.
Citing Supreme Court precedents on sentencing principles, the court said punishment must reflect the seriousness of the offence, provide deterrence and protect the community, while also considering the possibility of reform.
Court noted that both convicts were first-time offenders and that no act of violence was proved against them. However, it held that the nature of the recovered material and the finding of intent to aid a proscribed terrorist organisation placed the case towards the higher end of the sentencing range.
Under Section 25(1A) of the Arms Act, the punishment ranges from seven to 14 years. Under Section 23 of the UAPA, the punishment ranges from five years to life imprisonment.
The court said a sentence of 14 years under each provision was proportionate to the gravity of the offence proved, but directed that both sentences run concurrently as they arose from the same transaction.
The court directed jail authorities to compute the residual sentence after giving effect to the set-off for the period already undergone in custody. It also informed the convicts of their right to appeal before the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh within the prescribed period.
Comments are closed.