Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.
State – Appellant
Versus
Mohd. Qasim & Ors. – Respondents
Cr.REV.P. 141 of 2023 & Cr.M.A. 3810 of 2023
Decided On : 28-03-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the factual background describes the case and allegations. (Para 1 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. court's examination of prevailing procedural jurisprudence. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. arguments presented by the state regarding investigatory powers. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. respondents' defense against charge framing. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. legal standards for framing of charges under cr.p.c. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 6. the implication of supplementary charge-sheets in investigations. (Para 22 , 25 , 26) |
| 7. understanding unlawful assembly under indian penal code. (Para 32 , 42) |
| 8. final observations on the law of peaceful versus violent protests. (Para 44 , 118 , 134 , 143) |
| 9. conclusion and order resulting from the judgment. (Para 152 , 153 , 154 , 155) |
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 includes right to peaceful protest and the right of law enforcing agency to prosecute individuals who indulge in violent protest. More specifically, this Court will deal with the question of admissibility of statements obtained from police witnesses and individuals at different stages of investigation. It will examine whether there is any necessity to lay down a procedure for the investigating agency to put the entire investigated material before the Court and inform the Court that they have concluded the investigation before arguments on charge are heard.
2. This Court starts the discussion with the premise that this Court is not innovating jurisprudence of procedure to be adopted at the stage of framing of charge by the Courts, which is well established extensively by way of various precedents of the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court. The application of principles laid down in such legal precedents have long been recognized and applied in varying settings of criminal cases. This Court in the present case has undertaken a thorough examination of the principles so laid down and reaffirmed it.
3. Arguments in this case were heard where judicial interpretation was also sought about the right of prosecution to file repeated supplementary charge-sheets to fill in the lacunae at any stage. This Court witnessed spirited legal debate from both sides. This Court also had occasioned to analyse well thought scholarly material and legal precedents tracing the law on riots and its ramifications before arriving at its conclusion.
4. The State has filed the present revision petition under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter 'Cr.P.C.') seeking setting aside of the impugned order dated 04.02.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-04, Special Judge (NDPS), South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in Sessions case bearing no. 318/2022 titled as 'State v. Mohd. Ilyas @ Illen' whereby learned Trial Court discharged the respondents herein and proceeded to frame charges only against accuse
The mere presence in an unlawful assembly implicates accused members under Section 149 IPC, regardless of individual intent, if actions align with the assembly's common purpose.
Point of Law : Citizenship – Protest – Rejection of bail - none of those co-accused who have been granted bail were caught in an overt act which indicated their active participation in perpetrating t....
The Court's decision was based on the application of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to determine whether a prima facie case was made out against the Accused for the matter to p....
The court emphasized the need to balance personal liberty with the enforcement of criminal law and the duty to ensure that the law does not become a tool for targeted harassment.
Point of Law : Unlawful assembly - Bail granted - When there is a general allegation against a large number of persons Court naturally hesitates to convict all of them on such vague evidence. Therefo....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and Courts must exercise their jurisdiction to uphold the tenets of personal liberty, subject to r....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
