Read Time: 08 minutes

A special NIA court on Tuesday, June 22, discharged Assam MLA and farmers’ leader Akhil Gogoi in Anti-CAB (Citizenship Amendment Bill,2019 ) Chabua Violence case in which he was charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) for being responsible for provoking the crowd to commit violence which led to serious injuries on police official, apart from destruction of property and vehicles.

While discharging Mr. Akhil Gogoi and two others in the case on the grounds of inadequate material to attribute an act of terrorism, the court stated,

“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 aforementioned case arose on 10.12.2019 when a SI of Chauba Police Station, Dibrugarh loged an ejahar (FIR) stating that on 09.12.2019, while he was doing law and order duty at Chabua town, a crowd of about 6000 persons, led by Akhil Gogoi caused economic blockade and pelting of stones, one of which hit his face and injured him grievously. It was also alleged that the mob led by Gogoi tried to murder the police personnel on duty.

Therefore, a case was registered against Mr. Gogoi and three others under sec. 120(B), 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. Later on, after an order passed by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, the National Investigation Agency (NIA), took over the investigation on 09.04.2020. At present, the case was brought before the NIA Court at the stage of consideration of charge.

Regarding the role of Mr. Gogoi in the violence incident, the court stated,

“In this regard, upon perusing the speeches of A-1 from D-29, I find that though it contains some sharp political statements and criticism with regard to CAB, there is no incitement to violence. I also do not find incitement / instigation to damage property or obstruct public officials. Considering the content of the speeches available in D-29 and the statement of the witnesses about provocative speech, it appears that the tone and tenor of the speech might have been aggressive on the issue of CAA, rather than the speech directly inciting violence.”

The court further added, 

“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.”

On the point of framing of charge against the three accused, referring to the analysis of Delhi High Court in Asif Iqbal Tanha case and various others the court was of the opinion that the omissions and commissions of Mr. Akhil Gogoi revealed by the materials could not 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. The Court also relied on the principle laid down in Zahoor Ahmed Shah Watali casethat the degree of satisfaction with regard to UA (P) Act for the purpose of charge framing is higher and that while adjudicating bail.

Therefore, the court, finding that the materials are inadequate to attribute any act of terrorism and frame charges against him, held Mr. Akhil Gogoi not personallycriminally liable for the offences charged.

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.

Read Order here