To Frame Charge Under Section 39 Of UA(P) Act, Specific Activities With The Requisite Mens Rea Must Be Proved: NIA Court Discharges Akhil Gogoi From A Conspiracy Case

Case Background

• It was alleged that Akhil Gogoi (Accused-1)secretly merged his organization Krishak Mukti Sangram Samiti – KMSS with Revolutionary Communist Centre. Later, he got associated with the CPI (Maoist).
• He, along with Sri Dhaijya Konwar (A-2), Sri Manas Konwar (A-3), and Sri Bittu Sonowal (A-4) were purported to be involved in carrying out activities to spread hatred against the Government.
• A charge sheet was filed under Sections 120(B), 124-A, 153-A, 153-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Section 18/39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 [UA(P) Act].
• While Akhil Gogoi is in custody, the other three accused are on bail.
• The National Investigation Agency (NIA) had acquitted the four accused from the conspiracy charge.

Submissions of the Prosecution

• It was submitted that there are sufficient evidence to charge the accused under Section 18/39 of the UA(P) Act, and also under the relevant Sections of the Indian Penal Code.
• Senior Public Prosecutor, Sri Satyanarayana, gave a detailed statement of the materials relevant to the Prosecution.

Submissions on behalf of the Accused

• It was stated that Akhil Gogoi (A-1) was not involved in conspiring against the Government, and instead, he had actually requested not to engage in any violent acts.
• It was also clarified that none of the accused were identified as members of KMSS, neither was the violence due to the organization.
• Senior Advocate Sri H.A Ahmad submitted that accused calling for blockade, protest, bandh, etc. without any motive of violence would not amount to sedition.

The NIA’s Order

• Special Judge Pranjal Das analysed all the evidences and witnesses, and held that the materials are insufficient to prove the charge against the accused.
• The statements of some of the witnesses were recorded after more than ten years from the date of the alleged activities, the Judge observed.
• Accordingly, the Judge discharged all the accused persons under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

What are your views on the case and the order?