Additional chief judicial magistrate (ACJM) Ashwani Panwar, on December 19, while hearing a case related to a protest at Jantar Mantar demanding the implementation of women’s reservation in the Parliament before the 2024 Lok Sabha polls held that the material on record indicated her involvement in the alleged offences.
Referring to the higher courts, the ACJM said, “The documents/statements/evidence produced by the prosecution must be considered in totality and at the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into, and the material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true.”
According to the prosecution, on July 29, 2024, in a protest organised in support of the issue of women’s reservation at Jantar Mantar, Alka Lamba was the main speaker.
It was also stated that two-three other protests were being organised, and all were informed that an Order under Section 163 (Power to issue order in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been promulgated outside the protest site, on Jantar Mantar Road, the Delhi Police said.
The prosecution stated that at around 1:30 pm, Alka Lamba, along with other protesters, came to the barricades near Tolstoy Road and started raising slogans, being adamant to gherao/surround/siege the Parliament.
The senior police officials employed loud hailers to warn the protesters about the imposition of Section 163 of the BNSS and requested to end their protest. However, the protesters, on being instigated by the accused, were adamant to march towards the Parliament for “gherao” (surround/siege), the Delhi Police alleged.
The police said that Lamba and other protesters pushed the male and female police officials, jumped the barricades, and some of them even blocked the road opposite ‘Free Church’ by lying on the main road, which hindered the public’s right of way.
Despite repeated explanations, the accused and the protesters did not listen and thus were detained, the police said.
The ACJM said that a “prima facie” case exists against Alka Lamba for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 132 (Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty), 221 (Obstructing the public servant in the discharge of public functions), 223(a) (Disobedience to the order duly promulgated by public servant) and 285 (Danger/obstruction in the public way or line of navigation) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
“Accordingly, the charge is directed to be framed against the accused under the above-mentioned provisions. Application moved on behalf of the accused seeking discharge/termination of the proceedings stands dismissed and disposed,” the court held.
The court stated that at the stage of charge, after having taken into consideration the entire record and the evidence sought to be produced by the prosecution, where two views are possible, the view “favouring the prosecution” ought to be adopted.
Mentioning that the prosecution cannot be denied an opportunity to prove its case, the court said that the material placed on record by the prosecution cannot be scrutinised to the extent of causing a “mini trial” at the stage of decision on the charge itself.
“The act of the accused clearly shows that the police officials were obstructed in performing their duties, the officials were pushed before jumping the barricades during the protest, showing use of criminal force and assault,” the ACJM noted.
Saying that there was a specific promulgation under Section 163 of BNSS prohibiting the protest, the court noted that after jumping the first line of barricades, Lamba can again be seen leading the protestors to push the women police officers forming a chain.
“The accused, with other protestors, then reached the second line of barricade and attempted to push the same. When the attempt was thwarted, the accused, with the other protestors, lay on the road/ public way,” the court said.
The ACJM said that Lamba, with numerous other protestors, can be seen lying on the road/public way for quite a while.
“She then stood up, could be seen talking to a senior public official and then, after a brief conversation with other protesters, she hurried towards a corner of the second line of barricade, and successfully jumped the same to reach the main Tolstoy Road,” the ACJM noted.
Referring to the material on record, the court said the videos collected by the police have captured all these sequences of events, and Lamba “vanished” after reaching Tolstoy Road, leaving the protesters clueless.
The court noted that in subsequent videos, the police are seen peacefully detaining the remaining protesters, after they were free from the accused’s instigation.
The court said that Lamba was present at the place of the incident, had been instrumental in leading the demonstrators out of the permissible area of protest, used criminal force and assaulted the police officers on duty while wilfully disobeying an order duly promulgated by a public servant.
“Such disobedience in the present facts and circumstances of the case as seen from the police report, also caused obstruction to the road/ public way, annoyance to the public as well as police officers on duty and injury to the police officers present at the spot,” the court said.
The actions of the accused also caused danger to the life, health and safety of peaceful demonstrators and public servants alike, noted the ACJM.
At the stage of framing of charge, the court is not required to assess the sufficiency of evidence for conviction but merely to see whether there is prima facie material raising a grave suspicion against the accused, the court said.
“Thus, in the present case, the statement of the complainant and other police officials clearly discloses grave suspicion against the accused and the defences raised by the accused are to be dealt with at the stage of trial,” the court said.