“It is pertinent to note that no leave of the court was taken for filing of the same. Rather, the third supplementary chargesheet begins with a patently wrong statement,” said additional sessions judge Arul Verma expressing dismay that this supplementary chargesheet was filed on February 1, 2023 after considerable arguments had already been heard and just a day before the conclusion of final arguments about the framing of the charges .
The verdict said that the photo identification of the accused was done by witnesses almost three years after the incident. Besides, barring two, others were all police witnesses, making the prosecution’s case “suspect”. The court also appeared to believe that the third chargesheet was filed merely to fill the lacunae in the prosecution case of non-identification of the accused by police witnesses. In fact, the court said, the witnesses merely aver that the accused were part of the protests and some were ‘speaking loudly’ and ‘were arguing with the police’ without attributing any overt act to them.
The court further observed that there was nothing on record to even suggest prima facie the accused being part of a riotous mob, with none of them shown brandishing weapons or throwing stones, etc. “The chargesheet fails to elaborate what inculpatory or unlawful common object has been attributed to the accused. Also, there isn’t an iota of evidence qua sharing of the common object by the accused with each other and with the crowd in general,” the court said.
The prosecution did not place any WhatsApp chats or SMSes or any other proof of the accused persons interacting with each other that could lend credence to the prosecution’s assertions of a conspiracy. “Even in photographs, none of the 12 accused are standing side by side. In the video too, they cannot be seen signalling or talking to each other,” the court noted.
The court tore into the allegations that the accused violated Section 144 CrPC imposed on the Jamia area on December 13, 2019 and declared there had been no prohibitory orders in the area where the protests took place. While the court noted that police witnesses did aver that Section 144 CrPC was in force at the time, proof of notification was not placed on record when the original chargesheet and the two supplementary ones were filed. “It was only when the third supplementary chargesheet was file that the order of Section 144 CrPC, that too for near Parliament, was filed. Even then, it cannot be said with certainty that the accused herein would definitely march thereto. The fact is that there was no prohibitory order in force in the area where the protests took place,” the court said.
The court also stated that none of the accused had denied being present at the protest site. Yet no overt act or participation in the commission of offences was attributed to them. “There were no eyewitnesses who substantiated the version of the police that the accused persons were in any way involved in the commission of the offences. Thus, mere presence of the accused at the spot sans any overt acts cannot inculpate them,” the court declared.