Back
Special NIA Court Acquits 78-Year-Old Man In Case Over Lack Of Evidence
A in Lucknow has delivered a landmark verdict in a 33-year-old case, acquitting a 78-year-old man, Mohammed Naeem, of all charges. Presided over by Additional District and Sessions Judge Umakant Jindal, the court ruled that the prosecution failed to provide credible evidence to support allegations of anti-national activities and hate speech stemming from the aftermath of the Babri Masjid demolition.
The Genesis of the Case
The case dates back to , when officers patrolling in Gorakhpur’s Ismailpur area claimed that they observed a group of men displaying black flags and shouting slogans such as "Pakistan Zindabad" and "Ganatantra Diwas Murdabad." The authorities alleged that these individuals were inciting hatred and threatening India's national integrity. Although a was registered, the legal proceedings languished for decades, with the investigating agency even submitting a final report in , noting that the case had become "stale" and lacked sufficient evidentiary backing.
Arguments and Judicial Scrutiny
The defense counsel argued that the case was entirely fabricated and lacked any physical evidence, such as the alleged black flags or recovery memos. Crucially, the prosecution’s case faced significant hurdles during trial. While the claimed the accused had fled the scene, no witnesses were produced to identify the specific individuals involved. Furthermore, the complainant, who had filed the original report, failed to appear for , rendering his legally insufficient.
The court noted with concern that the new investigating officer, who filed the in , admitted under that he had never visited the site of the alleged occurrence, nor had he collected any fresh evidence, relying entirely on the records of the previous officer who had already recommended closing the case.
Key Observations
The judgment highlighted critical lapses in the investigation. Judge Umakant Jindal stated:
"The failure to prepare a and to produce the allegedly recovered black flags, which was the most important piece of evidence, makes the prosecution's case doubtful."
Regarding the identification of the accused, the court noted:
"The prosecution failed to disclose the identity of any person who had informed the that the houses allegedly belonged to the accused or that they were the persons who had raised the slogans."
The judge emphasized the failure of the state to meet the :
"The prosecution has failed to prove the facts constituting the essential ingredients required for the offences under ."
Final Verdict and Implications
Concluding that the prosecution failed to establish the charges , the court Mohammed Naeem of all charges under Sections 295A (outraging religious feelings), 124A (), and 153B (imputations against national integration). The ruling underscores the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring that long-pending criminal cases are substantiated by tangible, reliable evidence, rather than relying on delayed investigations and procedural inconsistencies. The decision serves as a significant reminder of the high evidentiary standards required to sustain grave charges like .
