Facing heavy police, the court said there was no evidence that the defendant was part of a conspiracy and acted in tandem with or participated in mob violence or even used weapons. or throw stones. It says prosecutions cannot be brought on the basis of “guess and conjecture” and charges cannot be filed on a “probability basis”.
Supplementary Session Judge Arul Verma criticized the police for filing an allegation of “ignorance”, adding that their case was “devoid of indisputable evidence”. Released 11 of the 12 defendants, the judge commented: “Comparing the facts brought forth from the examination of the indictment and the three additional charges, this court could not fail to reach a conclusion. that the police were unable to catch the real perpetrators behind the commission of the offence. offense, but has certainly managed to force the people here as scapegoats.”
In favor of citizens’ right to protest, the judge observed: “Citizens’ right to freedom of demonstration should not be lightly interfered with. It should be emphasized that dissent is nothing more than an expansion of fundamental rights. priceless copy of the right to freedom of speech and expression contained in Article 19 of the Constitution of India, subject to the limitations contained therein.It is therefore a right that we are sworn to protect. obligation to lean towards an interpretation that protects the rights of the accused, with the power to disseminate disparities between them and the state apparatus.”
“Desideratum is for investigative authorities to distinguish the difference between dissent and insurgency. The latter must be undeniably quelled. However, the former must be given space. , a forum, for dissent perhaps reflects something that is gnawing at citizens’ consciences,” the court commented.
Describing the late recording of witness testimony, almost a year after the incident, as “no less bizarre”, the court noted that even after identifying a Bilal Ibnu Shahul in the crowd, the scene The police did not make him a defendant but a policeman. witness.
“It is clear that the police arbitrarily chose to arrange some people in the accused crowd and others in the same crowd as police witnesses. This act of picking up this cherry by the police caused confusion. harm the principle of fairness,” the judge said.
Jamia Violence Case 2019: Delhi Court dismisses Sharjeel Imam, Asif Iqbal Tanha
Affirming that the answer to the question of whether the accused were complicit in the first place in their participation in the mess was “unequivocal”, the court stated that at first glance there was no evidence. show the defendant against the enforcement of any law.
Noting that all of the accused implied that although they were on the spot, they did not participate in the illegal assembly, the court said they did not engage in public conduct or participate in the practice of law enforcement. committing a crime.
“No witness has been able to substantiate the opinion of the police that the accused were nonetheless involved in the commission of the offence,” the court said.
FIR registered against defendant for alleged crimes under Section 143 (illegal assembly), 147 (riot) 148 (riot armed with a deadly weapon), 149 (any member of the association) illegal contract crimes when prosecuting common subjects), 186 (obstructing public officials in performing their official duties), 353 (assaulting or using force to prevent public officials from performing their official duties), 332 (arbitrarily causing injury to prevent civil servants from performing their official duties), 333 (arbitrarily causing serious injuries to prevent public officials from performing their duties), 308 (attempting to commit murder), 427 (crimes causing damage to public employees). damages for the amount of Rs 50 crore), 435 (crime by fire or explosives with intent to cause damage to the sum one hundred or (in the case of agricultural products) 10 rupees, 323 (penalty for self-injury), 341 (penalty for wrongful restraint), 120B (criminal conspiracy) and 34 (act committed) performed by a number of people in order to fulfill the common intention) of the IPC.
“Needless to say, the investigating authority cannot prevent further investigation fairly, with the departure of the court, to bring out the real culprits, with arbitration that does not blur the lines. between dissidents and rioters and stop accusing hereafter innocent protesters,” the court said.
Recognizing that prosecution had been brought “performed and arbitrary” against those accused, with the exception of Mohammad Ilyas, aka Allen, the court affirmed that investigative authorities should conclude uses technology or gathers credible intelligence, and then just “gets involved in provoking the justice system”.
Interestingly, the main indictment was filed against Mohammad Ilyas on April 21, 2020, after which an additional indictment was also filed against him. A second additional indictment was subsequently filed against 11 other defendants, namely Mohammad Qasim, Mahmood Anwar, Shahzar Raza KhanMohd Abuzar, Mohd Shoaib, Umair AhmadBilal Nadeem, Sharjeel Imam, Asif Iqbal Tanha, Chanda Yadav and Safoora Zargar.