Jammu, Sep 5 (NVI) A Jammu court has discharged seven persons accused in a case related to protests held in the city following the 2019 Pulwama terror attack, observing that mere presence in a large gathering cannot by itself make an individual criminally liable for offences allegedly committed by other members of the assembly.
The order was passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge Anoop Kumar Sharma, who held that the prosecution material did not establish that the accused had participated in, abetted or shared the common object behind the alleged acts of violence during the protest.
The case pertains to a Jammu bandh and protest held on February 15, 2019, a day after the Pulwama terror attack in which 40 CRPF personnel were killed.
According to the prosecution, a crowd of around 600-700 people moved towards Raghunath Bazaar and was stopped by police near Vivekanand Chowk. The gathering allegedly turned unruly following the intervention, with five to six vehicles subsequently set on fire.
The accused discharged by the court have been identified as Rohit Sharma, Kailash Kumar, Manat Kumar, Sajan Kumar, Sukhdev Singh alias Rinku, Sahil Sharma and Jagdish Kumar.
They were facing charges under Sections 188, 147, 148, 149, 435 and 427 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC).
While examining the evidence, the court noted that some police witnesses had identified the accused as being present in the gathering but none had attributed any specific overt or covert act to them in connection with the alleged violence.
The court also observed that certain witness statements appeared to be similar to each other and did not adequately explain when, where or under what circumstances the accused had allegedly been identified.
The prosecution had also relied upon mobile-phone tower location data to establish the presence of the accused in the vicinity of the incident. The court, however, held that the presence of their mobile phones in the area was not sufficient to establish that they were members of the particular section of the gathering which allegedly turned violent.
Referring to Supreme Court precedents, including the judgment in Zainul v. State of Bihar, the court reiterated that liability under Section 149 RPC requires material showing that the accused was a member of an unlawful assembly and shared its common object.
The court observed that the initial purpose of the gathering appeared to be a protest against Pakistan following the Pulwama attack, with slogans such as “Hindustan Zindabad, Pakistan Murdabad”.
According to the court, the gathering appeared to have turned violent only after it was stopped by the police.
The court also found insufficient material to proceed with the charge under Section 188 RPC, which relates to disobedience of an order promulgated by a public servant.
It noted that the prosecution had not placed on record the alleged order issued under Section 144 of the CrPC and that there was no complaint from the public servant whose order was allegedly disobeyed.
While considering whether charges should be framed, the court stressed that a judicial officer is required to independently assess the material placed before it and cannot mechanically accept the prosecution’s allegations.
The court observed that at the stage of framing charges, it “cannot act merely as a Post Office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution”.
After examining the evidence and material collected during the investigation, the court concluded that the case raised, at best, a “very bleak suspicion” against the accused, rather than the grave suspicion required for proceeding with a criminal trial.
The court consequently discharged all seven accused from the offences and dismissed the challan, also relieving them of their bail bonds.
The proceedings against the seven accused have thus come to an end at the trial court level.—(NVI)
