The Delhi High Court Thursday reserved its verdict in Delhi Police’s plea against trial court’s order discharging Sharjeel Imam, Asif Iqbal Tanha, Safoora Zargar and eight others in the 2019 Jamia violence case. A single judge bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma reserved its verdict after hearing counsels for all parties. Appearing for Zargar, senior advocate Rebecca John argued that the person who has been identified as her client had a face cover: “How can these witnesses come to the conclusion it is me? Until my identity isn't confirmed, my role has to be disconnected.” John said, “My home was near place of incident, hence CDR (call detail record) was of no consequence.” She argued that Zargar was not named until the second supplementary chargesheet filed in July 2021 for an incident that happened in 2019. She said, “It's my argument that somewhere you've to say how did you identify this person. You can't make out who that person is.” She claimed that the two police officers who were standing outside the gate close to the site where the incident took place have not identified her client. She referred to a statement made by an ASI to argue that the word (ladkon/ladka) used in the chargesheet referred to me. “I am not a ladka, I’m a ladki.” She further argued that Safoora was not among the 42 people who were apprehended and sent to Badarpur police station. She countered the statements of two witnesses, a caretaker of Ambedkar hostel and a peon who had been shown photos from the footage of the incident and allegedly identified her client even though they were not present at the site. “Somewhere they have to say how they identified,” John said to which the court asked if this is permissible at the stage of charge. John said, “Yes, if identity is not known.” John argued that statements of co-accused who allegedly identified at the incident site is inadmissible evidence. “It does not behove an investigating agency like Delhi Police to place inadmissible evidence before the court,” John said. Appearing for the Delhi Police, additional solicitor general Sanjay Jain submitted that the “decision of the trial court as to whether the respondents were bystanders is again venturing into a premature stage in the exercise of examining evidence”. “Appreciation by the trial court that these are innocent bystanders are completely belied,” Jain said. Jain submitted that at the stage of framing of charges, the trial court cannot indulge in conducting a mini-trial by determining the credibility of the evidence as to whether it would warrant a conviction. Jain said the trial court has “overstepped its jurisdiction” in passing “ disparaging and gravely prejudicial observations” against the investigation and investigative agencies and therefore they should be expunged from the record. Appearing for Asif Iqbal Tanha, advocate Sowjhanya Shankaran said that the trial court had “beseeched” the Delhi Police to find out who the persons responsible for the violence are and had not denied that violence did not break out. “It is their onus to find out who of the people who caused the violence because it is nobody’s case that violence did not break out,” she said. With respect to the case against Tanha, Shankaran said that the Delhi police “has not been able to establish even at the slightest suspicion let alone grave suspicion that we were those 11 persons involved in the acts of violence”. Appearing for Sharjeel Imam, advocate Talib Mustafa argued that there was not a single photo, video, or witness statement in all chargesheets against his client. On police’s reliance on call detail records, Mutafa said that his client left the “lawful assembly which allegedly turned violent” because his glasses had broken. The police, in their revision plea, have sought the setting aside of the February 4 order of additional sessions judge Arul Varma, of Saket courts, that discharged Imam and the others, alleging that the trial court not only discharged the respondents but was “also swayed by emotional and sentimental feelings, it cast aspersions on the prosecuting agency and passed gravely prejudicial and adverse remarks against the prosecuting agency and the investigation”.
