3 yrs after Jamia violence, prosecution begins arguments

On Tuesday, the DCP filed a status report in court stating that it was an inadvertent error. The court, while accepting the report, said that the reply does not name the police officers who committed the error. Pandey told court that the accused along with other rioters assembled to go to the Parliament against CAA-NRC in New Delhi district despite the prohibitory orders.

“They started by first breaking open the barricades, breaking signage of Delhi Police. Thereafter, they started throwing stones. Fifteen police officials received injuries… By show of criminal force, they tried to compel the police personnel,” Pandey told the court.

The SPP submitted that the common object was to march to the Parliament by throwing stones and breaking barricades. “The accused and rioting mob were willing to do whatever was required, including the commision of any offence against police, public. Even the public received injuries through stones pelting.”

The SPP tried to reason why the relevant sections against the accused were invoked by arguing that “if somebody is throwing stones, you know somebody is going to get hurt” and if this person knows that “throwing stones might break my head it is good enough to cover” in the IPC sections invoked against them. The SPP said that every member who is part of that assembly is guilty.

“They were throwing stones not ringing the bell of a temple,” the SPP submitted. He argued that section 149 (Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence commit­ted in prosecution of common object) carves out a separate category of offence having a common object of an offence, simply being part of an unlawful assembly is enough to fasten criminal liability on all persons. He argued that only a bystander or onlooker is exempted.

“The manner, sequence and demeanour of accused persons will show that they were part of a common assembly harbouring a common object,” he submitted.