Jammu Court Discharges Seven Accused in 2019 Pulwama Protest Case
A Jammu court discharged seven men accused of rioting during a 2019 Pulwama protest, citing lack of evidence linking them to the mob's unlawful acts.
A court in Jammu has discharged seven men who were booked for rioting and arson during a protest against Pakistan held after the 2019 Pulwama terror attack. The court observed that it is not a mere post office to frame charges at the behest of the prosecution and must apply its judicial mind to the facts.
The Second Additional Sessions Judge, Anoop Kumar Sharma, ruled that the accused cannot be linked to an offence committed by a mob unless there is evidence they shared a common unlawful object with all its members. The discharged individuals include Rohit Sharma, Kailash Kumar, Manat Kumar, Sajan Kumar, Sukhdev Singh alias Rinku, Sahil Sharma, and Jagdish Kumar.
According to the FIR lodged at Jammu City Police Station, a mob of nearly 600-700 people had taken out a procession, raising anti-Pakistan slogans in protest against the Pulwama attack that killed 40 paramilitary personnel. When stopped by police, the crowd allegedly turned violent, damaging parked vehicles and setting six of them on fire.
The police had identified the accused based on witness statements and cell phone tower locations. However, the judge noted that simply being part of the larger mob is insufficient to attract Section 149 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC), which makes every member of an unlawful assembly guilty of an offence committed in prosecution of its common object.
The court further observed that the initial common object of the assembly was to protest against the enemy responsible for the martyrdom of security personnel, which was not unlawful. It noted there was no evidence that the mob was equipped with deadly weapons or combustible material from the outset, nor that unlawful slogans were raised.
Addressing the charge of violating prohibitory orders, the judge said the investigating agency failed to place on record the specific order issued under Section 144 of the CrPC. He added that even if such an order existed, taking cognisance without a complaint from the District Magistrate would be barred under Section 195 of the CrPC.