Breaking-"Materials Inadequate To Attribute Any Act Of Terrorism Under UAPA": NIA Court Discharges Akhil Gogoi In Chabua Case -Read Judgment
A Special NIA Court today in Gauhati has discharged Raijor Dal Chief, Akhil Gogoi in the Chabua case involving UAPA. Special NIA Judge Pranjal Das ordered thus: "In view of the materials on record as discussed above, I am of the considered opinion that the omissions and commissions of A- 1 revealed by the materials cannot be prima-facie said to be a terrorist act done with the intention...
A Special NIA Court today in Gauhati has discharged Raijor Dal Chief, Akhil Gogoi in the Chabua case involving UAPA.
Special NIA Judge Pranjal Das ordered thus:
"In view of the materials on record as discussed above, I am of the considered opinion that the omissions and commissions of A- 1 revealed by the materials cannot be prima-facie said to be a terrorist act done with the intention of threatening unity, integrity, sovereignty and security of India or a terrorist act done with the intention to strike terror in the people. Therefore, from the aforesaid deduction, I am of the considered view that it cannot be said that there are no sufficient materials prima-facie for framing charge against the accused A-1 Sri Akhil Gogoi u/s 16 of the UA (P) Act, 1967."
"On the basis of the materials, I also do not find a prima-facie case for the purpose of framing charge, to hold A-1 personally criminally liable for offences of rioting, unlawful assembly causing damage to property, causing hurt to public official on duty." The Court said.
Consequently, the Court also discharged other co accused persons namely Jagjit Gohain and Bhupen Gogoi. However, the Court framed charges against Bhaskarjit Phukan under sec. 144/148 of IPC.
The facts of the case date back to 9th December 2019 when a case was filed by SI of Chaubua police station alleging that a crowd of about 6000 people allegedly led by Gogoi caused economic blockade and pelting of stones, one of which hit his face and injured him grievously. Furthermore, it was alleged that the mob allegedly led by Gogoi tried to murder the police personnel on duty.
Case was registered under sec. 147, 148, 149, 336, 307, 353, 326 of IPC and Subsequently, sec. 153A/153B of IPC r/w Sections 15(1)(a)/16 of the UA(P) Act was added.
"If the contents of the speech of A-1 Sri Akhil Gogoi do not contain instigation of violence etc., simply the statements by some of the witnesses about A-1 giving provocative speech leading to violence could not relied on in my considered view to impose criminal liability on A-1 Sri Akhil Gogoi. In the large gatherings, where speeches are delivered on contentious issues, it is possible for the crowd to get excited and some unruly elements therein might take undue advantage of the situation to indulge in unacceptable behavior. The omission on the part of A-1 as revealed by the statements of some witnesses is that after some vandalism started, he did not do anything to stop it. However, in my considered view, that in itself would not impose criminal liabilities on him (A-1), though it might have been his moral responsibility to try and do something about it".
The Court has also relied on the Delhi High Court Judgment in Asif Iqbal Tanha's Case.
ORDER
Despite of the statement of informant Tulumoni Duarah and Devarikhi Chetia, in view of the other materials on record, I am of the considered view that it is not possible to come to a prima-facie finding for the purpose of framing charge, that A-1 was part of an unlawful assembly which injured the informant and therefore, it would not be justified to try A-1 for offences of u/s- 326/307 IPC with the aid of Section 149 IPC.
On the basis of the materials, I also do not find a prima-facie case for the purpose of framing charge, to hold A-1 personally criminally liable for offences of rioting, unlawful assembly causing damage to property, causing hurt to public official on duty.
Thus, on the basis of the materials on record, I am of the considered view that the same is inadequate to frame charges against the accused A-1 for the offences of IPC narrated in the charge sheet for other IPC offences.
In this regard, I also refer to the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Sajjan Kumar (Supra) that of two views are possible and there is no grave suspicion, a Court would be justified to discharge the accused.
Consequently, in view of the above discussion, I am of the considered finding that the materials are inadequate to attribute any act of terrorism to A-1 and frame charges against him under the UA (P) Act, 1967. I also come to the considered finding that there is no justification to frame charges against A-1 Sri Akhil Gogoi under Page 50 of 57 the charge sheeted penal provisions of IPC or other penal sections and that he is liable to be discharged
Title: Spl. (NIA) Case No. 03/2020