The Delhi Police had alleged in a charge sheet against Kejriwal and the 10 MLAs, in 2018, that they ‘conspired to assault’ Prakash. However, the trial court in last August discharged Kejriwal, deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia and 9 AAP MLAs of charges of “unlawful assembly, criminal conspiracy, abetment of offence or criminal act done in furtherance of common intention of all.”
Rejecting Prakash’s revision petition, the sessions court on Wednesday ruled: “There is no merit in the submission that the trial court conducted a fishing and roving inquiry into allegations and had drawn erroneous inferences and conclusions without having the benefit of examination of prosecution witnesses…It cannot be said that the trial court committed any error apparent on the face of record by wrongly accepting the version set up by accused persons,” the order said.
Also, the sessions court did not find force in Prakash’s contention that the import of the trial court was as if he (Prakash) was on trial. The sessions court described the said contention as totally misplaced. “There is no infirmity, illegality or perversity or impropriety in the order passed by the trial court,” the sessions court said.
The trial court, however, had found prima facie case against AAP MLAs Amanatullah Khan and Prakash Jarwal for ‘assaulting Prakash at Kejriwal’s residence.’ The trial court held that from the conduct of Arvind Kejriwal “and surrounding circumstances, it cannot be inferred even remotely that he was part of any such conspiracy, as alleged, much less to draw any inference of his complicity in the commission of offence. His conduct clearly is not in consonance with the allegations levelled against him in the present case.” Appearing for Kejriwal, senior advocate N Hariharan, had contended that the charges were full of embellishments, a creature of afterthought.
The lower court had further held, “there is also no material available on record to infer that the alleged act of assault and intimidation by some of the accused persons present there was done in furtherance of common intention of all present there or that there was any plan or prior meeting of minds or prior concert among the accused persons present there.” It had relied on the statement of VK Jain, former adviser of Kejriwal, recorded before a magistrate under Section 164 of CrPC. Jain, who was present in the said meeting at Kejriwal’s residence, said in his statement to the Delhi Police on February 21, 2018, that he had ‘not seen Anshu Prakash being manhandled.’