Trial court ‘swayed by emotions’: Delhi Police moves HC against order discharging Sharjeel Imam, others in Jamia violence case

The plea states that the trial court did not consider and weigh the evidence on record and proceeded to discharge the respondents at the stage of framing of charges.

The plea alleges that the trial court erred in not only holding a “mini-trial at this stage” but also recorded perverse findings which are contrary to the record to arrive at the finding that a case of discharge was made out against the respondents. “…at the stage of consideration of an application for discharge, the court has to proceed with an assumption that the materials brought on record by the prosecution are true and evaluate the said materials and documents with a view to find out whether the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At this stage, probative value of the materials has to be gone into and the court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the materials would not warrant a conviction,” the plea states.

The plea has alleged that the trial court made observations on merits wherein at this stage it was only required to find out whether there is sufficient ground to proceed against the respondents. The police have contended that while exercising its judicial mind to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution, the trial court should not enter into the pros and cons of the matter or into a weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities which is done at the stage of trial.

Discharging the accused, ASJ Varma’s order stated that “dissent is nothing but an extension of the invaluable fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression contained in Article 19 of the Constitution of India, subject to the restrictions contained. It is therefore a right which we are sworn to uphold.” The trial court further observed that police did not apprehend the “actual perpetrators” but “managed to rope” the accused persons as “scapegoats”.

The ASJ then quoted Mahatma Gandhi in his order: “Conscience is the source of dissent.”

“When something is repugnant to our conscience, we refuse to obey it. This disobedience is constituted by duty. It becomes our duty to disobey anything that is repugnant to our conscience,” the order stated.

ASJ Varma said that to allow the accused persons to “undergo the rigmarole of a long-drawn trial does not augur well for the criminal justice system of our country”.

“Furthermore, such a police action is detrimental to the liberty of citizens who choose to exercise their fundamental right to peacefully assemble and protest,” he said. The court said there were admittedly scores of protesters at the site and among the multitude, some anti-social elements within the crowd created an environment of disruption and havoc.

“However, the moot question remains: whether the accused persons herein were even prima facie complicit in taking part in that mayhem? The answer is an unequivocal ‘no’. Marshalling the facts as brought forth from a perusal of the chargesheet and three supplementary chargesheets, this Court cannot but arrive at the conclusion that the police were unable to apprehend the actual perpetrators behind commission of the offence, but surely managed to rope the persons herein as scapegoats,” the ASJ said in the order.

The plea claims that force was deployed to “maintain law and order” near the university, and they asked the gathering which “included students” to maintain law and order, however the protesters were raising slogans and asked the “police to go back”, and subsequently started to break the barricades pursuant to which the police force on duty “opposed them”. The plea claims that the stones pelted by protesters caused injuries to policemen. Around 20 police officials and 25 protesters sustained injuries due to the clash, the plea submits.