2020 Delhi riots: Witness statements against me are pure hearsay, Shifa-ur-Rehman tells court

Mathur said that what is conspiracy will have to be inferred from the “same standards and tests which are in the general law”. He said, “It cannot be diluted it cannot be presumed or assumed the way the prosecution wishes to do”. It was argued that the prosecution does not have any material to show that his client was in “agreement to do an illegal act, or a legal act by illegal means”.

“You cannot rope me merely by conspiracy. My role will have to be specific and limited to what I have done if at all there is anything culpable,” Mathur emphasized. Rehman, along with several others has been booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment (UAPA) Act for allegedly being the “masterminds” of the February 2020 riots, which left 53 people dead and over 700 injured. The violence erupted during the anti-CAA and National Register of Citizens (NRC) protests.

He relied on statement made by protected witness James to say that JCC group does not include his name. Mathur read James’ statement which said, “Iske baad iss protest ko aur aage badhane ke liye Jamia Awareness Team banayi gayi jisko Amanatullah Khan lead karta tha; iss team mein zimmedaari thi dilli mein alag alag jaagh protest ki shuruat karne ki. Iss team mein jitna bhi karcha paani tha woh AAJMI ke president Shifa ur Rehman Amanatuallah ko cash mein dete the”. (To take the protest forward, Jamia Awareness Team was formed which was lead by Amanatullah Khan, this team was responsible for starting protests at various places in Delhi. The expenses for this team were given by AAJMI president Shifa ur Rehman to Amanatullah)

He thereafter argued that this information is not corroborated and that what James said is “pure hearsay”. He relied on James’ statement to argue that he had not named his client as an “active radical member”. Mathur argued that there was not a single witness testimony which showed his client’s meeting of mind with others to commit any of the acts he was accused of,, let alone Section 302 (murder) and 307 (attempt to murder) of the IPC which he has been accused of.

“I’m not able to find out any part in which I could be roped in section 15 (terrorist act) which is the defining part. If I have to be roped in for conspiracy, by virtue of section 18 (punishment for conspiracy) for that they need to show that my acts which were -prequels suggested a conspiracy and all acts that I did thereafter were in pursuance to conspiracy. People of alumni decide to contribute in any manner to a peaceful protest. At the protest site there is nothing against alleged me. None of the parts of section 15 are found out against me,” Mathur said.

Mathur said that if at all the prosecution wished to allege that funds were being collected and those funds were being used for providing “kharcha” for protest site but this in anyway does not implicate his client in the present crimes alleged.