In a significant verdict, a court in Jammu has acquitted a man accused of involvement in the high-profile 1989 kidnapping of Rubaiya Sayeed, the daughter of the then Union Home Minister Mufti Mohammad Sayeed. The court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Historic Case and Court Proceedings
The case dates back to December 8, 1989, when Rubaiya Sayeed was abducted in Srinagar by members of the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF). She was released five days later on December 13, after the government agreed to release five jailed militants. The incident sent shockwaves across the nation and marked a pivotal moment in the Kashmir conflict.
The accused, identified as Farooq Ahmed Dar, also known as 'Bitta Karate', faced trial under various sections of the law, including terrorism-related charges. The case was heard by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, Suneet Gupta. After a prolonged trial, the court delivered its judgment, highlighting critical gaps in the evidence presented.
Key Reasons Behind the Acquittal
The court's decision to acquit stemmed from the prosecution's inability to establish a concrete link between the accused and the crime. The judge noted a complete lack of evidence that could reliably place Dar at the scene of the abduction or prove his direct participation.
Furthermore, the court found that the testimonies of witnesses were inconsistent and failed to meet the stringent legal standards required for a conviction. With no forensic or corroborative evidence to support the charges, the benefit of the doubt was granted to the accused.
Reactions and Broader Implications
This acquittal brings a controversial chapter of Jammu and Kashmir's history back into focus. The Rubaiya Sayeed kidnapping is widely seen as an event that dramatically escalated militancy in the region during the late 1980s. The verdict is likely to be analyzed for its legal and historical significance.
Legal experts point out that the judgment underscores the fundamental legal principle that the burden of proof lies entirely with the prosecution. When evidence is insufficient or unreliable, a conviction cannot be sustained, regardless of the case's profile or the severity of the allegations.
The ruling concludes one of the many long-pending cases from that turbulent era, leaving a complex legacy for the victims, the accused, and the judicial system that navigates these difficult histories.
