‘Victim Of Violence, Not Offender’: Sharjeel Imam To High Court In Response To Delhi Police’s Plea Against Discharge In Jamia Violence Case

Responding to Delhi Police’s petition against his discharge in the 2019 Jamia violence case, Sharjeel Imam has told the Delhi High Court that he was in fact the victim of violence and not the one who committed any offence.

Imam has also said that he only campaigned in favour of peaceful protest and not violence.

The arguments have been made in the written submissions filed on behalf of Imam in response to Delhi Police's plea challenging his discharge, and that of Safoora Zargar, Asif Iqbal Tanha and eight others in the matter.

“The fact that violence occurred during the peaceful protest at Jamia which resulted in the Answering Respondent breaking his glasses is not indicative of the fact that the he participated in the said violence. It merely shows that the he was a victim of the violence and had no active role to play in its culmination,” Imam said.

Imam has said that the act of shouting slogans “in favor of a particular means of peaceful protest” in no manner portrays his participation in the alleged violence that happened during the protest against Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).

“In his speech at AMU on 16.12.2019, the Answering Respondent (Imam) merely stated that he campaigned in favor of chakka jam as a means of protest which by no stretch of the imagination could be called a violent method of protest,” he said.

Imam has also submitted that there is no single admissible evidence against him to show that he shared the common object of the unlawful assembly involved in the alleged violence or rioting.

“The Answering Respondent (Imam) is not to be seen in any of the videos adduced by the Prosecution nor is there any statement recorded by the investigating agency in which he is even named much less having attributed any role to him in the commission of the alleged violence,” he has said.

He has also submitted that his call data records (CDR) clearly shows that he had already left the place of occurrence on the date of incident before the assembly allegedly turned violent.

“That the disclosure statement in question was not recorded by the investigating agency in the present case and even otherwise the same has got no evidentiary value at all and cannot be the basis to frame charges,” he has said.

The revision petition filed by Delhi police will be heard today by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma. Imam is represented by Advocates Talib Mustafa, Ahmad Ibrahim and Ayesha Zaidi.

On February 4, the trial court had discharged Sharjeel Imam, Asif Iqbal Tanha, Safoora Zargar, Mohd. Abuzar, Umair Ahmed, Mohd. Shoaib, Mahmood Anwar, Mohd. Qasim, Mohd. Bilal Nadeem, Shahzar Raza Khan and Chanda Yadav in the case. However, it had found sufficient evidence to frame charges against Mohd. Ilyas.

Days thereafter, the police approached the High Court challenging the discharge. While issuing notice in the petition, Justice Sharma had said that the trial court’s observations against the investigating agency will neither affect further investigation nor the trial of any accused person.

The case is connected to the incidents of violence at Jamia Milia Islamia University in December, 2019. The FIR alleged offences of rioting and unlawful assembly - sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 186, 353, 332, 333, 308, 427, 435, 323, 341, 120B and 34 of IPC were invoked in the case.

The police had filed a chargesheet against Mohd Ilyas on April 21, 2020. A second supplementary chargesheet was then filed against 11 other accused persons, who have been discharged in the matter.

A third supplementary chargesheet was also filed recently on February 1, 2023, during continuation of arguments on charge. The prosecution tried to establish that the witnesses had identified the accused persons on the basis of some photographs.

The trial court in its order observed that Delhi Police failed to adduce fresh evidence and rather sought to present old facts in the garb of “further investigation” by filing another supplementary chargesheet.

It further said that there were no eyewitnesses who could substantiate the police’s version that the accused persons were in any way involved in the commission of the offences.

In the revision petition, Delhi Police argued that trial Court was swayed by “emotional and sentimental feelings” while discharging the accused. The court passed gravely prejudicial and adverse remarks against the prosecuting agency and the investigation, it has said.

Contending that trial court held a "min-trial" at the stage of framing charges, the police also said that the trial ought to have only merely sifted through the evidence to find out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

Title: State v. Mohd. Qasim & Ors.