MOB ATTACK CASE: Court discharges seven accused for lack of evidence of common object

06/09/2026

JAMMU, Sep 5: A court in Jammu has discharged seven persons, including Rohit Sharma, in a 2019 case related to arson and damage to vehicles during a protest following the Pulwama terror attack, holding that mere presence in a large mob was not sufficient to fasten criminal liability in the absence of evidence showing that the accused shared the common object of the unlawful assembly.
The order was passed by Anoop Kumar Sharma, 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, in a challan arising from FIR No. 15/2019 registered at Police Station City Jammu under Sections 188, 147, 148, 149, 435 and 427 of the Ranbir Penal Code.
The prosecution case was that on February 15, 2019, a Jammu bandh had been called by different social and political organisations following the Pulwama terror attack of February 14, in which around 40 security personnel were killed. Restrictions under Section 144 of the CrPC had also been imposed by the administration.
According to the prosecution, a mob of around 600 to 700 people proceeded from J P Chowk towards Raghunath Bazaar at about 2.30 pm, raising slogans including "Hindustan Zindabad Pakistan Murdabad". When police personnel deployed near Vivekanand Chowk attempted to stop the mob, it allegedly became unruly, damaged vehicles parked along the roadside and set five to six vehicles on fire.
The investigation relied mainly on statements of police witnesses and mobile phone tower locations to establish the alleged presence of the accused in the mob. The prosecution claimed that the accused were members of the unlawful assembly and were liable for rioting, disobedience of the prohibitory order and mischief by fire.
The prosecution argued that the statements of several police witnesses established that the accused were part of the unlawful assembly that indulged in arson and defied the prohibitory order.
The defence, however, argued that even if the prosecution evidence was accepted at face value, it established no more than the presence of the accused at the spot. Mere presence, it was submitted, could not attract Section 149 RPC in the absence of an overt act or evidence showing that the accused shared the common object of the assembly.
After examining the record, the court noted that several police witnesses had named Rohit Sharma and Kailash Kumar as members of the mob, but none had specified when, where or under what circumstances they identified them. More importantly, the witnesses had not attributed any overt or covert act of arson to either accused.
With regard to the other accused, the court observed that some witnesses stated that they subsequently came to know their names, but the record did not disclose how or from whom such information had been obtained.
The court referred to Supreme Court judgments including Charan Singh v State of U.P., Zainul v State of Bihar, Kuldip Yadav v State of Bihar and Rajendra Shantaram Todankar v State of Maharashtra, dealing with the requirements for attracting constructive liability under Section 149.
The court observed that, to fasten liability for an offence committed by a mob or unlawful assembly, there must be cogent material beyond mere membership of the assembly showing that the accused shared its common object.
Analysing the circumstances, the court said the initial common object of the 600-700-strong assembly appeared to have been a protest against the country allegedly responsible for the Pulwama attack. The assembly turned violent only after police stopped it from proceeding further.
The court observed that the investigation did not establish who committed the arson or who abetted it. Simply identifying some accused as being part of the larger mob, without evidence of their direct or indirect participation in the arson, was not sufficient to invoke Section 149 RPC.
It also noted that the mobile tower locations showing the accused to be in the vicinity of the place of occurrence were insufficient to establish that they were members of the particular section of the mob that turned violent. There was also no evidence that the mob was equipped with deadly weapons or combustible material from the outset.
The court further found insufficient material to sustain the charge under Section 188 RPC. It noted that the alleged Section 144 order had not been placed on record, nor was there a complaint from the public servant whose order was allegedly disobeyed, as required under Section 195 of the CrPC.
The court reiterated that at the stage of framing charges, it must apply its judicial mind to the material on record and determine whether a prima facie case or grave suspicion exists. It cannot act merely as a "Post Office" for the prosecution.
The court concluded that the material against the accused amounted at most to a "bleak suspicion" arising from their alleged presence in a mob of 600 to 700 people, rather than grave suspicion required for framing charges.
Accordingly, the court discharged all seven accused of offences under Sections 188, 147, 148, 149, 435 and 427 RPC and dismissed the challan. The accused were also relieved of their bail bonds.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty