'Sar Tan Se Juda' Case | No Provocation To Kill Anyone, No Relation With Kanhaiya Lal Murder : Ajmer Court Acquits Dargah Cleric, 5 Others
Acquitting a dargah cleric (Syed Gohar Husain Chisti) and five others accused of provoking people and chanting the "Sar Tan Se Juda" slogan during a rally in June 2022, the Ajmer Court noted in its judgment that the evidence presented did not support the prosecution's claims of the accused threatening or inciting harm to any specific individual. "...the prosecution has not been able...
Acquitting a dargah cleric (Syed Gohar Husain Chisti) and five others accused of provoking people and chanting the "Sar Tan Se Juda" slogan during a rally in June 2022, the Ajmer Court noted in its judgment that the evidence presented did not support the prosecution's claims of the accused threatening or inciting harm to any specific individual.
"...the prosecution has not been able to prove that the accused, in furtherance of a common objective, made speeches and slogans to provoke the crowd to breach public peace by intentionally insulting them and caused criminal intimidation by threatening them to cause harm to someone”: Additional District and Session Judge Ritu Meena observed.
For context, the slogan in question was allegedly raised during a public protest (at the main gate of the Ajmer Dargah) following suspended BJP Leader Nupur Sharma's alleged comments about the Prophet Muhammad, which had sparked widespread outrage.
It was the state's case that the alleged video clips of the slogan in question were widely circulated online, which in effect led to the unfortunate incidents at Udaipur [the murder of a tailor (Kanhaiya Lal)] and Amravati [the murder of a 54-year-old chemist (Umesh Prahladrao Kolhe)] wherein the victims were beheaded on account of religious hatred promulgated by such slogans.
However, the Court found no connection between the accused and the murders of Kanhaiyalal in Udaipur and Umesh Prahladrao Kolhe in Amravati.
The Court stated that since the accused were not considered involved in the incidents in Amravati and Udaipur, and there was no evidence that these incidents were inspired by their slogans, it is not proven that they instigated anyone to commit murder.
The Court also noted that the prosecution presented only selected clippings from a video CD (containing the accused's alleged speech) rather than the entire incident footage. Hence, it was impossible to conclude from these brief clippings what specific speeches or slogans were directed at any particular individual.
The Court noted that the video CD presented by the prosecution was edited (काट छांट), raising suspicion about its authenticity.
The judge added that to convict the accused, it was necessary to present the entire speech the accused gave, which the prosecution failed to do.
The Court specifically observed that PW 16 and PW 18 had stated that the accused raised slogans for 15-20 minutes, and PW 17 mentioned that he recorded the incident on his mobile for 5-7 minutes, and PW 20 for 15-20 minutes.
However, the Court noted that the video clips on the CD are only 3 minutes and 19 seconds.
Additionally, the Court observed that even after examining the CD presented by the prosecution, it couldn't be concluded that the accused were attempting to provoke the general public to kill any specific person.
Importantly, the Court also concluded that regarding the accused involvement in the murder of Kanhaiya Lal in Udaipur and the incident in Amravati (the murder of 54-year-old chemist Umesh Prahladrao Kolhe), it was unclear how these incidents are related to this case against the accused.
“Thus, when the accused have not been considered to be involved as accused in the incidents in Amravati and Udaipur, nor has it been considered that the incidents in Udaipur and Amravati were inspired by the slogan given by them. Therefore, in such a situation when the accused have not been considered to be involved in the incidents that took place in Amravati and Udaipur, it is not proved in fact that they had instigated someone to commit murder,” the Court said.
Advocate Urpreet Singh Sahni appeared for the accused persons.