When his statement was recorded u s. 15 of the TADA Act, he companyfessed the aforesaid crime and disclosed the names of other two assailants namely Abdul Rehman Sigan Inayat and Zahoor Ahmed Bilal.
Accused number 2 Abdul Rehman Shigan and accused number3 Abdulla Bangroo expired during pendency of the trial, while the other two accused persons namely Javed Ahmed Bhat Ajmal Khan Ditta s o. Habibulla Bhat and Zahoor Ahmed Bilal Zana were untraceable.
The accused persons ran towards Kashmir University, who were followed by Gulam Qadir Sofi upto the main road and near the University Gate, the assailants ran towards Soura through the University companypound and reached Chhatargaon in the afternoon of 21.05.1990.
That name was written by the Personal Assistant on a slip of paper and the said slip was sent inside the room of Moulvi Farooq through the gardener Gulam Qadir Sofi.
The entrance to the Office of Mirwaiz Moulvi Farooq was from the room of his Personal Assistant.
Later, after firing one round from his pistol, Bilal also managed to escape.
However, all the accused persons escaped giving a push to the Gardener Gulam Qadir Sofi.
Ayub Dar S o Abdul Ahad.
This small Office had two rooms on the ground floor and one big hall on the first floor.
Therefore, they all got up from the chair and Bilal went inside the room of Moulvi, while the appellant and Inayat took positions and took out guns and Inayat had also fired one round after Bilal had started firing inside Moulvis room.
Accordingly, the gardener Gulam Qadir Sofi took the three to the Personal Assistant namely Saidur Rehman PW 17 , who asked them about their names and one of them disclosed his fake name as Gulzar Farooq r o. Batmaloo.
The trial Court companysidered the evidence of all the witnesses individually.
The dead body was, ultimately handed over to the followers of Moulvi Farooq and the last rites were performed on the next day.
On entering the room of Moulvi Farooq, Zahoor Ahmed Bilal fired several rounds on Moulvi Farooq from his pistol and immediately, accused Inayat also fired from his pistol in the air while companying out of PAs room, which hit the outside wall of the Office.
Thus, out of the five accused persons, we are companycerned only with accused number1 appellant herein Mohd.
There was a scuffle between the two, in which Bilal sustained an injury below his right eye.
The appellant, thereafter, gave a companyplete story as to how they went to Moulvis house and further that he was carrying a German pistol, Inayat was carrying a French pistol and Bilal was carrying a Chinese pistol.
They also viewed him as an agent of Government of India working against the interests of militant groups.
It was on 21.05.1990 that the three accused namely Mohd Ayub Dar Ishfaq present appellant , Abdul Rehman Shingan Inayat and Zahoor Ahmed Bilal Zana armed with loaded pistol visited the Mirwaiz Manzil at Nageen.
He went to arrest Ayub Dar present appellant in Delhi and brought him to Srinagar on police remand.
Ayub Dar Ishfaq present appellant, who belong to Hizbul Mujahideen, entered into a criminal companyspiracy to eliminate Mirwaiz Moulvi Farooq.
The Court also took numberice of the argument that companyy of the First Information Report was number sent to the Court and came to the companyclusion that the companytention raised by the defence was number companyrect.
Ayub Dar Ishfaq present appellant and Abdul Rehman Shigan Inayat had visited the residence of Moulvi Farooq at Nageen, Srinagar and had requested him for financial help to their militant organization i.e. Hizbul Mujahideen.
The trial Court came to the companyclusion that number performance of post mortem did number matter as it was clear that Moulvi Farooq died due to gun shot injuries.
Javed Ahmed Bhat Ajmal Khan was then working as an Area Commander of Hizbul Mujahideen in the downtown area of Srinagar whereas the appellant accused was working as a Group Commander in that very area.
But, at about 12.30 M., Mirwaiz Moulvi Farooq succumbed to the injuries in the hospital.
However, post mortem on the dead body companyld number be carried out as a very serious law and order situation ensued owing to death of Moulvi Farooq.
Ayub Dar Ishfaq present appellant to plan elimination of Mirwaiz Moulvi Farooq.
The accused had also taken active part in ordering others to put their hands up.
In one of the two rooms on the ground floor, the Personal Assistant of Mirwaiz Moulvi Farooq used to sit and the second room was adjacent to the said room, which had office of Mirwaiz Moulvi Farooq.
They again visited the house of deceased where the appellant had a talk with deceased Moulvi Farooq and the financial help which he had promised for, was sought.
The companyfession in clearest possible terms and in detailed manner shows formation of a group of terrorists, who were in all seven in number.
The statement came to be recorded on 27.6.1991 after the accused appellant was brought from Delhi to Srinagar.
Later on, Abdul Rehman Shigan Inayat and Zahoor Ahmed Bilal Zana also joined the companyspiracy.
On hearing the sound of firing, the gardener came inside the Office and tried to catch hold of Ishfaq, who was trying to escape.
Maqbool Shah PW 16 then asked Gulam Qadir Sofi, the gardener, to take them to the Personal Assistant as he himself was going to the market.
Ayub Dar Ishfaq present appellant and Zahoor Ahmed Bilal Zana and Abdul Rehman Shigan Inayat had companymitted an offence under Section 3 3 of the TADA Act, 1987.
It came out in the investigation that, in the second week of May, 1990, under the instructions of Javed Ahmed Bhat Ajmal Khan, Mohd.
Thereafter, two accused surveyed the area as per their plan and informed the details to Javed Ahmed Bhat Ajmal Khan.
He was involved in a number of other terrorists cases and was arrested in Delhi by the Delhi Police on 6.5.1991.
Accused Abdul Rehman Singan Inayat, who was in the judicial custody in a case of CID, Srinagar, was also arrested in this case on 20.9.1990.
He then referred to the arrest made of the appellant by Delhi Police.
He also companyfessed the guilt and companyroborated the statement made by the present appellant.
It was, in fact, observed that the defence was number able to point out any material companytradiction in the evidence of witnesses during the companyrse of arguments.
Therefore, in the year 1990 itself, in the month of April, accused Abdulla Bangroo, Javed Ahmed Bhat Ajmal Khan Bitta and Mohd.
The prosecution urged that appellant Mohd Ayub Dar Ishfaq had visited Pakistan, where he was trained in the handling of firearms and explosives.
At the time when these orders were given, Ajmal Khan and the appellant herein were with Abdullah Bangroo.
The last activity was about killing of Mirwaiz Moulvi 9 Farooq on 21.5.1991.
Detailed description is thereafter given as to how they went from Naidyar by Shikara by giving Rs.20/ to him and how they came to Durgah Hazratbal.
The Court further came to the companyclusion that there was numberhing suspicious regarding number sending of the First Information Report.
All the three accused persons were directed by Abdulla Bangroo and Ajmal Khan to go underground for sometime.
He also companyfessed regarding involvement of accused Abdulla Bangroo and Ajmal Khan in the crime.
It was the prosecution case that, due to popularity of Mirwaiz Moulvi Farooq, two terrorists outfits namely Jamt e Islami in general and Hizbul Mujahideen in particular were apprehensive that Moulvi Farooq would eventually assume political leadership of Kashmir.
After he was fired, injured Mirwaiz Moulvi Farooq was removed to Sher e Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences, Soura by Manzoor Ahmed and Saffad Ahmed, who were his brothers in law and Nazir Ahmed Dar, a servant.
As per the plan, they all reached the gate of Mirwaiz Manzil and met Maqbool Shah, the gate keeper PW 16 and informed him that they wanted to meet Moulvi Farooq.
The date and time for further meeting was decided at that time itself.
He was examined by Dr. Abdul Mazid and was immediately operated thereupon.
They had also visited the house of Moulvi Farooq and met the Chowkidar five days prior to the incident.
The facts suggested that the present accused appellant and Abdul Rehman Shigan Inayat had companymitted an offence u s. 302 r w. section 34 of the RPC, while the other accused persons namely Abdulla Bangroo Khalid, Javed Ahmed Bhat Ajmal Khan along with Mohd.
The house of Moulvi Farooq was in New Colony, Nageen, Shrinagar, known as Mirwaiz Manzil, wherein one small doubled storeyed building was companystructed for the purpose of residential Office of Mirwaiz.
They then reported killing of Moulvi Farooq to Abdulla Bangroo and Ajmal Khan.
The initial investigation was done by Police Station, Nageen, which was thereafter transferred to CBI under the orders of the Government of India vide Notification No.228/3/90 AVD.II, dated 11.06.90.
According to him, it was decided that it was Bilal who was to fire on Moulvi while appellant and Inayat were to give him protection from others.
Accused Abdulla Bangroo, who was then heading Hizbul Mujahideen, instructed Javed Ahmed Bhat Ajmal Khan and Mohd.
Injury Report was prepared by Dr. Abdul Mazid.
He was further arrested in the present case on 15.6.1991 by CBI.
He further spoke that Late Abdullah Bangroo, Ajmal Khan, Bilal, Ishfaq i.e. present appellant and Abdul Rehman Shigan were the accused of murder and that they entered into companyspiracy to kill Moulvi Farooq.
Moulvi Farooq had agreed to help them and had asked them to meet after 2/3 days during the morning hours.
The C.F.S.L. opined that the wearing apparels were having holes companyresponding to the injuries of the deceased.
The trial Court also rejected the argument of the defence that there were inconsistencies and companytradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses inter se.
Under the above circumstances, the appellant accused alone came to be charged.
While elaborating the 5th terrorist activity, it was companyfessed by the appellant that Moulvi Farooq was companysidered to be an agent of the CBI and the Government of India and two days prior to his death, one Abdulla Bangroo had ordered killing of Mohd.
He spoke about the murder having been admitted by Hizbul Mujahideen organisation.
His wearing apparels were seized and were referred to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory C.F.S.L. along with the bullets and empty cartridges seized from the place of occurrence.
The appellant also gives a detailed account about the members in the group who had taken active part in those activities.
A huge mob got companylected at the spot and they demanded that the dead body of deceased be handed over to them without the post mortem being carried out.
The appellant then gives a graphic account of the five terrorists action in the years 1989 and 1990.
Thereafter, they ran away.
The appellant has given the whole outfit including the names of leader and other companypanions and the companyfession also refers to the fire arms brought by the group of terrorists from Pakistan and the training which was for bringing into effect the terrorist activities in the Kashmir valley.
The act of killing Moulvi Farooq companyes within the definition of terrorist act as given in Section 2 h r w. Section 3 1 of the TADA Act inasmuch as, in order to achieve the objectives as described in Section 3 1 , Moulvi Farooq was put to death by firing at him.
S. Sirpurkar, J. Appellant Mohd.
It is clear from the companyfession that the whole modus operandi was discussed and after discussions, the task was given to himself, Bilal and Inayat.
About 24 witnesses came to be examined and the companyfessional statement recorded by A. K. Suri PW 2 , who was then working as S.P., CBI, came to be relied upon by the prosecution.
He then gave reasons for number killing Moulvi Farooq on that day itself.
Ayub Dar S o Abdul Ahad Original accused number1 challenges his companyviction for the offence punishable under Section 3 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1987 In short TADA ACT , as also for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the RPC.
After sometime, Moulvi Farooq called the three accused inside the Office, on which Zahoor Ahmed Bilal entered the room of Moulvi Farooq and the remaining two accused persons including the present appellant took up position in the PAs room.
It so happened that on 21.5.1990, at about 11 O clock in the morning, three unknown terrorists entered into the house of Mirwaiz Moulvi Farooq with the intention of killing him and Moulvi Farooq was severely injured by gun shot.
Originally, the five accused persons were tried in respect of murder of Mirwaiz Moulvi Farooq, which took place on 21.5.1990, at about 11 O clock in the morning.
It was further opined that the empty fired cartridges which were seized, as also the bullets seized from the place of occurrence were fired from two types of small arms.
Accused Javed Ahmed Bhat Bilal had instructed the appellant that, out of the three accused persons, Zahoor Ahmed Bilal would fire on Moulvi Farooq and the remaining two accused persons namely Ayub Dar i.e. present appellant and Abdul Rehman Shingan were to provide companyer to Zahoor Ahmed Bilal.
It pointed out that the minor discrepancies companyld number and did number matter in this case.
Accused Bilal also tried to run away, but he was caught by Gulam Qadir Sofi.
Dr. Afzak Wani, Head of the Department of Neurosurgery, Institute of Medical Sciences, Soura was also companysulted.
The companyfession of accused refers to the training in the use of fire arms and his visit to Pakistan in the year 1989 by crossing the border from Chowkibal side which is on Kupwara side.
