New Delhi: “Prosecution cannot be initiated on the basis of conjecture and conjecture,” said the Saket district court on Saturday as it discharged Sharjeel Imam, Safoora Zargar, Asif Iqbal Tanha and eight others in 2019. jamia violence case,
It also observed that there is a need to encourage dissent, while adding that the expression of such dissent should be peaceful.
Imam, Zargar and Tanha are student leaders and activists who gained prominence during the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) during 2019-2020.
Delhi Police alleged that a mob blocked traffic and damaged vehicles during a protest against the CAA in Delhi in December 2019, and incited “rioters” by a speech given by Imam I went. The Jamia incident is being seen as a precursor to the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots.
In a detailed order passed on Saturday, Additional Special Judge Arul Verma acquitted eleven of the twelve accused in the case, noting that the Delhi Police had been unable to nab the real perpetrators of the violence, but made eleven “scapegoats”. Made it
Only one of the twelve initial accused, Ilyas (also known as Alan), will now stand trial, The court said that because of photographs of him throwing a burning tyre.
This was one of a total of three cases registered against Imam, two of which are related to the 2019 Jamia violence, while the third accuses him of being part of the conspiracy of the 2020 northeast Delhi riots. He is facing sedition charges in the second Jamia case.
The Saket district court on Saturday acquitted the 11, saying the state’s case has been launched in a careless and negligent manner, and making the accused go through a criminal trial does not augur well for the country’s criminal justice system.
The order cleared eleven of multiple criminal charges including criminal conspiracy, violation section 144 The Code of Criminal Procedure (prohibiting gatherings of four or more people), and noted several lapses in the handling of the case.
read this also, Maharashtra govt told SC, if Sakal Hindu Samaj does not give hate speech, we will allow it to hold the event
‘Chargesheet an afterthought, highly condemnable’
The court observed that the prosecution had filed three chargesheets containing the same material, while wrongly noting that it had the permission of the court.
The court said, “This interpolation i.e. moving the application ‘to conduct further investigation’ is highly reprehensible, as no such permission was sought, nor granted…”.
It added that the supplementary charge sheet contained the same photographs and statements as were submitted earlier and the photo identification of witnesses was done late.
The investigating agency has not presented new evidence, but has tried to present the same old facts in the guise of further investigation.
The court said, “filing of multiple charge sheets must stop, otherwise this witchcraft signifies something beyond mere prosecution and will have the effect of trampling on the rights of the accused persons.”
1976 Supreme Court reference CaseThe court held that mere innocent presence in an assembly does not make one a member of an “unlawful assembly”.
It said that a perusal of the record indicates that eleven accused were present at the spot, but they were not part of the unlawful assembly.
“No direct act or participation in the commission of the offense was attributed to them. There is no eyewitness who can corroborate the version of the police that the accused persons were in any way involved in the commission of the offence”, the court said.
‘No injunction’
The court observed that some police witnesses had stated that section 144 was in force at that time, no such notification was placed before the court till recently.
The court noted that when the initial charge sheet was filed, there was no evidence of such an order. The order under Section 144 was presented to the Parliament only after the third supplementary charge sheet was filed.
“There was no prohibitory order under section 144 CrPC in force in the area where the protest took place,” the court said.
While the state had argued that the accused were “resisting the execution of law” by marching towards Parliament, the court rejected the allegations and said that there was “no evidence” that the accused had violated the laws imposed by the police. crossed the barricades.
“There is nothing on record to show prima facie that the accused were part of any riotous mob,” the court said.
It further said that there was no evidence to prove that the accused shared a common objective or that they were aware whether other protesters were armed.
‘No evidence of conspiracy’
The court further noted that there was not even a whisper or insinuation in the charge sheet that the eleven accused acted in concert. It held that “meeting of minds” (consent of the accused to commit the crime) was necessary for a conspiracy, which did not exist.
It added that the state has not provided any documentary evidence that the eleven accused were talking among themselves or any evidence of a larger conspiracy.
“Even in the photographs, all the twelve accused are not standing together. Even in the video, they are not seen pointing or talking to each other,” the court said, adding that the conspiracy charges were also not maintainable.
The court noted that the witnesses relied upon to establish its case were insufficient as there were no witnesses till the belated filing of the charge sheet who could identify the accused.
“They could identify the accused only after filing the third supplementary charge sheet. Is the police so unsure about their case?” asked the court.
The court also cited a 1964 The “seminal decision” of the Supreme Court, which stated that in a crime involving a large number of perpetrators, it can only be sustained if two or more witnesses give a coherent account of the incident.
The State had argued that the rule of witnesses was not a rule of thumb but only a “rule of prudence”. However, the court said that the 1964 judgment on the requirement of witnesses was the law of the land.
The court also noted that dissent is a fundamental right, subject to reasonable restrictions, and a right it was sworn to uphold.
“Dissent must be encouraged and not suppressed,” the court said, adding that the dissent must be absolutely peaceful and non-violent.
It added that the investigating agencies should have used technology or other intelligence to gather evidence and only then proceed against the accused or refrain from filing a false charge sheet against the eleven.
(Akshat Jain, law student at NLU, Delhi, interns with ThePrint.)
(Edited by Poulomi Banerjee)
read this also, Modi government approves appointment of five new SC judges, total strength now 32