Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Srinagar, Abdur Rashid Malik, Tuesday reserved judgment in the Romana hit-and-run case after prosecution and defence counsels concluded their arguments.
Special prosecutor AA Teli concluded his arguments, sayingthat “prosecution has gathered enough evidence to prove the accusedguilty.” While the defence counseladvocate Mushtaq Ahmad Dar pleaded “failure of prosecution to prove guilt.”
Romana Javed daughter of Dr Javed Shabnum of Bagh-i-Mehtabhere was crushed to death by a car at Parraypora here on May 3, 2009. Accordingto police, Shoaib Daryeel of Nowhatta and Ubaid Ahmed Khan of Bulbul BaghBarzulla, are accused in the case.
Advocate Mushtaq Ahmad Dar, defense counsel for accusedShoiab Dariyal, pleaded test identification of the accused was carried in theoffice of SHO in “violation of law.”
He pleaded there was contradiction in statement of anotherprosecution witness who had not stated name, parentage and residence ofaccused. “The number of vehicle by which deceased was allegedly hit was alsomissing in the statement.”
He further pleaded that another prosecution witnesses hadidentified Dariyal during investigation and later on, during the trial of casebefore court. “The accused had not been identified in the due course of law asit was required under law,” he pleaded while quoting various provisions of thelaw.
He also raised question over the “two chit story of theprosecution” and submitted one of the prosecution witnesses had in crossexamination before the court, said that “she was not given any chit by theaccused”.
Special prosecutor rebutted the defence counsel argumentsand pleaded that “the hand writing on chit that the accused had given to thevictim has phone number of the accused. The experts have also confirmed thatthe hand writing on the chit is of the accused.”
Prosecutor Teli further submitted that three witnesses haveidentified the accused in open court and recorded their statement. “The bloodstains on the car of accused were tested by experts while the mirror fragmentsof car used by accused to commit the offence was found on clothes of victim andconfirmed by the experts,” Teli submitted.
He pleaded that FIR of the case was produced before themagistrate within stipulated time and defence counsel has not produced anyevidence that its production was delayed.
Continuing his arguments against defence counsel, hesubmitted that “it is not quantity of witnesses but quality of witnessesunder law to prove the guilt of accused.”
After hearing both the parties, the court reserved it judgmentand also allowed defence counsel to submit its arguments in writing.