Delhi Court Acquits Two Alleged ISIS-JK Operatives, Cites Flaws in Probe
Trial court cites weak evidence, procedural flaws and lack of witnesses in acquitting Kashmir duo
New Delhi, Mar 20 — A Delhi court has acquitted two men accused of links with the Islamic State Jammu & Kashmir (ISIS-JK), citing serious shortcomings in the investigation and failure of the prosecution to establish charges beyond reasonable doubt.
Additional Sessions Judge Amit Bansal cleared Jamsheed Zahoor Paul and Parvaiz Rashid Lone, both residents of Shopian, who had been arrested in 2018 on allegations of associating with a banned terrorist outfit and arranging weapons for militant activities.
The case, registered by the Delhi Police Special Cell under provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and the Arms Act, claimed the accused had travelled to the national capital to procure arms. They were allegedly apprehended near a busy area close to the Red Fort with firearms and ammunition.
However, the court highlighted multiple procedural lapses that weakened the prosecution’s case. It raised concerns over the handling of digital evidence, noting that mobile phones seized from the accused were kept unsealed for an extended period before being sent for forensic examination, creating the possibility of tampering.
The court also found that electronic records presented as evidence did not meet legal standards for admissibility. Claims of communication with alleged handlers through messaging platforms remained unsubstantiated due to lack of credible proof.
Another key issue flagged was the absence of independent witnesses during the arrest, despite it taking place in a crowded public location. The court observed that failure to include neutral witnesses cast doubt on the recovery of arms and the overall narrative presented by investigators.
In its detailed order, the court concluded that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the accused were members of the banned organisation or had conspired to carry out any terrorist act. It also ruled that allegations related to procurement of weapons and communication with co-accused were not convincingly proven.
The verdict underscores the importance of strict adherence to investigative procedures, particularly in cases involving serious national security charges.
