news details |
|
|
| Mere presence in mob not enough: Court discharges 7 in Jammu Arson Case | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, Sept 7: Holding that mere presence in a mob cannot establish liability for arson without evidence connecting the accused to its unlawful common object, the Court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, Anoop Kumar Sharma, has discharged seven persons in a case arising from violence during the Jammu bandh following the February 2019 Pulwama terror attack.
In an order dated September 5, 2026, the court discharged Rohit Sharma, Kailash Kumar, Manat Kumar, Sajan Kumar, Sukhdev Singh alias Rinku, Sahil Sharma and Jagdish Kumar of offences under Sections 188, 147, 148, 149, 435 and 427 of the Ranbir Penal Code. It dismissed the challan and relieved the accused of their bail bonds.
The case, registered under FIR No. 15/2019 at Police Station City Jammu, concerned an incident on February 15, 2019. According to the prosecution, a crowd of approximately 600-700 persons proceeding from J.P. Chowk towards Raghunath Bazaar turned violent near Vivekanand Chowk after police stopped its movement. The mob allegedly damaged parked vehicles and set five to six vehicles on fire.
Advocates Anmol Sharma and Rajesh Sharma represented the accused, while Additional Public Prosecutor Raj Kumar appeared for the prosecution. The defence argued that the material established, at most, the accused's presence at the scene, without showing participation in the violence or a shared unlawful common object. The prosecution maintained that sufficient material existed to frame charges.
Examining the police witnesses' statements, the court observed that one appeared to be a "carbon copy" of another, with similarities extending to their chronology. Witnesses who named some accused did not explain when, where or under what circumstances they had identified them, or attribute any specific role in the arson.
The court also questioned statements that witnesses subsequently learnt the names of other accused, noting that the source of such information remained unexplained.
Mobile tower locations placing the accused near the scene were held insufficient to establish that they belonged to the section of the crowd which turned violent and committed arson.
The judge observed that the assembly's initial object was to protest against the Pulwama attack. There was no evidence that its members carried deadly weapons or combustible material suggesting an intention to commit violence from the outset. Once the crowd turned violent, investigators were required to establish who participated in or abetted the arson and shared the unlawful common object, the court said.
On the allegation of disobeying prohibitory orders, the court noted that neither the relevant order under Section 144 CrPC nor the requisite complaint from the public servant concerned had been placed on record.
Emphasising that a court cannot act as a mere "Post Office" for the prosecution while framing charges, the judge held that the material raised only a "bleak suspicion", rather than the grave suspicion required to proceed against the accused.
(JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
