Arzaan Ahmad Served as Defense Counsel
SRINAGAR, Nov. 18 — A Principal Sessions Court in Srinagar on Monday exonerated two individuals accused in connection with a fire that engulfed the storeroom of the Director of School Education Kashmir (DSEK) building a decade ago. The ruling comes after the court found insufficient evidence to proceed against the defendants.
Judge Jaffer Hussain Beigh, presiding over the case, dismissed the charges against Nusrat Ahmad Beigh and Shahnawaz Bahar, both employees of the education department, who had been implicated in an alleged conspiracy to destroy records through arson. The charges had been filed under multiple sections of the Ranbir Penal Code, including those pertaining to arson, forgery, and destruction of evidence.
The charges stemmed from a complaint filed after the blaze destroyed “specific valuable information” stored on the building’s first floor. Police investigators had alleged that the fire obliterated records linked to the fabrication of orders for private schools.
However, the court noted a glaring lack of evidence connecting the accused to the incident. The investigating officer failed to establish the chain of custody for the evidence, and key forensic documentation was reportedly absent. “From the perusal of the entire material on record, it reveals that there is not even a single word in the statement of witnesses to prove the accused were involved,” the court stated.
Arzaan Ahmad, who represented the accused, emphasized the absence of credible evidence during the proceedings. The court, agreeing with the defense, underscored that neither physical nor testimonial evidence could establish culpability.
“This would be a futile exercise for this Court to charge the accused persons,” the ruling stated, while also criticizing lapses in the investigative process.
The case, originally registered in 2014, had accused the defendants of forging official documents and destroying them through arson. The prosecution relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, which the court found insufficient to warrant further proceedings.
Ultimately, the court dismissed the case, observing that a prima facie case had not been made.
