State vs Mohd. Qasim - 2023 Supreme(Del) 2223

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Del) 2223

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
State – Appellant
Versus
Mohd. Qasim – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Sanjay Jain, Additional Solicitor General, Mr. Rajat Nair, Special Public Prosecutor, with Mr. Madhukar Pandey, Mr. Ashima Gupta, Mr. Dhruv Pandey and Mr. Arkaj Kumar, Advocates with DCP Crime, Mr. Amit Goel, ACP/ISC Mr. Ramesh Chander and Inspector Kamal Kumar, ISC Crime Branch, for the Petitioner.
Mr. M.R. Shamshad, Mr. Abubakr Sabbaq, Mr. Arijit Sarkar and Ms. Nabeela Jamil, Advocates for respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6.
Ms. Kajal Dalal and Ms. Aparajita Sinha, Advocates for R-4.
Mr. Javed Hashmi, Mr. Farid Ahmad, Mr. Shahnawaj Malik, Advocates for R-7.
Mr. Talib Mustafa, Mr. Ahmad Ibrahim and Ms. Ayesha Zaidi, Advocates for R-8.
Ms. Sowjhanya Shankaran, Mr. Siddharth Satija and Mr. Abhinav Sekhri, Advocates for R-9.
Mr. Ayush Shrivastava, Advocate for R-5 and R-10.
Ms. Rebecca John, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ritesh Dhar Dubey, Ms. Praavita Kashyap, Ms. Anushka Baruah, Mr. Chinmay Kanojia, Mr. Pravir Singh and Ms. Adya R. Luthra, Advocates for R-11.

JUDGMENT

Index to the Judgment

FACTUAL MATRIX
THE GRIEVANCE OF REVISIONIST
COMMON ARGUMENTS OF RESPONDENTS
LAW ON FRAMING OF CHARGE
THIRD SUPPLEMENTARY CHARGESHEET
	i. Fresh Evidence in Third Supplementary Chargesheet
UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY AND RIOTING
	i. Scheme of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
	ii. Analysis of Video Clips and other Evidence
ROLE OF EACH RESPONDENT: ARGUMENTS AND FINDINGS
	i. Respondent no. 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7: Mohd. Qasim, Mahmood Anwar, Shahzar Raza Khan, Umair Ahmed and Mohd. Bilal Nadeem.
	ii. Respondent no. 4 and 5: Mohd. Abuzar and Mohd. Shoaib.
	iii. Respondent no. 8: Sharjeel Imam.
	iv. Respondent no. 9: Asif Iqbal Tanha.
	v. Respondent no. 10: Chanda Yadav.
	vi. Respondent no. 11: Safoora Zargar.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
	i. Prima facie case of Unlawful Assembly and Rioting
	ii. Right to Protest: Peaceful Protest vs. Violent Protest
	iii. Remarks against Investigating Agency
CONCLUSION

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.

1. The present case before this Court raises questions which go to the root of the concepts of Indian Criminal Jurisprudence: the law that restrains the society from violent protest and whether it is consistent with the Indian Constitution which ensures right to free speech and expression, which in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2023 Supreme(Del) 2223

SWARANA KANTA SHARMAState – AppellantVersusMohd. Qasim – Respondent

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
State – Appellant
Versus
Mohd. Qasim – Respondent