|
The Rouse Avenue court has recently acquitted Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MP Swati Maliwal and others in 2011 Anna Andolan protest for anti government and pro Lokpal protest and sloganeering.
The court acquitted the accused persons giving them benefits of doubt. The court said that prosecution could not established the presence of accused at the spot. An FIR was lodged against Arvind Gaur, Neeraj Kumar Pandey and Swati Maliwal in Connaught Place Police Station in 2011 for violating prohibitory orders issued by a public servant. Additional Chief judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Divya Malhotra acquitted Swati Maliwal, Arvind Gaur and Neeraj Kumar Pandey of the charges levelled against them. The prosecution has alleged that on 29.11.2011 at around 4.45 p.m., the accused persons Arvind Gaur, Neeraj Kumar Pandey and Swati Maliwal, alongwith one Sachin Tomar (not chargesheeted) in furtherance of their common intention led a group of 100-125 people and assembled at the Inner Circle, Connaught Place, New Delhi, raising anti-government and pro-Lok Pal Bill slogans despite there being a Prohibitory Order under section 144 of the Code of CrPC dated 18.11.2011 issued by the then ACP, Connaught Place. It was alleged that their protest caused traffic jam at the Inner Circle, Connaught Place and despite being warned about such order, they did not leave the spot thereby committing offence punishable under section 188 IPC. While acquitting the accused persons, the court said that in order to prove its case, first and foremost the prosecution was required to show that the order was promulgated in the manner prescribed by law and the accused persons had knowledge of the Prohibitory Order despite which they disobeyed the same. Same is lacking in the present case. "Infact, most of the witnesses, including the public witness prosecution witness Durga Nand Jha have admitted during their cross-examination that such directions were not followed," the court pointed out. The court held, "Thus, besides the materially improved bald testimonies of some of the police witnesses which are held to be unreliable, prosecution has not produced even an iota of evidence to show that the mandate of law particularly, Section 134 Cr.P.C. and the Standing Order of the Delhi Police requiring to display of banner indicating promulgation of Section 144 Cr.P.C.; presence of atleast 2 videographers to capture the incident; availability of loud-hailer; repeated use of PA system by officer etc., was followed whereby offence under section 188 (Punishment for not following order passed by the public servant) IPC is not made out. "Besides, the prosecution has also not been able to establish the presence of the accused at the spot beyond reasonable doubt, the benefit of which has to be granted to the accused," the court said in a judgement passed on September 30. Almost all the police witnesses have identified the accused persons in the Court as being part of the protest or "leaders" of the protest on the date of incident, the court said. However, it is a matter of record that none of them was arrested from the spot. Same is reiterated in the testimonies of Investigation Officer (IO) ASI Pramod Kumar and HC Tara Chand who stated that after the registration of FIR, they went to the spot and searched for the accused but all in vain. Yet, somehow, the IO was able to join the accused during investigation. (ANI)
|
