Lucknow: A Special National Investigation Agency (NIA) Court in Lucknow acquitted a 78-year-old man in a 33-year-old case of sedition and spreading communal hatred after holding that the prosecution failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt and that crucial evidence linking the accused to the alleged offence was missing.Additional district and sessions judge and special judge (NIA) Umakant Jindal pronounced the judgement on July 31, 2026, acquitting Mohammed Naeem, a resident of Ismailpur in Gorakhpur district, who was facing trial under Sections 124A (sedition), 295A (outraging religious feelings) and 153B (imputations prejudicial to national integration) of the Indian Penal Code. The case was registered at Kotwali police station in Gorakhpur in 1993.According to the prosecution, on Jan 26, 1993, then Kotwali inspector Pawan Kumar Singh was carrying out patrolling with other police personnel when he reportedly saw a few people hoisting black flags from houses in Ismailpur locality and raising slogans like ‘Pakistan Zindabad’ and ‘Republic Day Murdabad’.Singh claimed in the FIR that the accused also shouted that another Pakistan was needed in India, referred to the demolition of Babri Masjid and made statements promoting hatred and disturbing communal harmony. Police claimed that the accused fled before they could be arrested and four black flags were recovered from the spot.Police later identified the accused as Mohammed Naeem, Mohammad Yusuf, Ataullah and others.Naeem’s counsel Rahul Sonkar told TOI that the case witnessed an unusually prolonged investigation, and the trial spanned over three decades.“The incident occurred in 1993, and the investigating officer filed a final report in 2003, stating that sufficient evidence was unavailable to prosecute the accused. The report also noted that one accused, Mohammad Yusuf, had died,” said Sonkar.“After the final report was not accepted, another investigating officer filed a chargesheet in 2005 against Naeem and Ataullah without collecting any fresh evidence,” he said.“During the pendency of proceedings, co-accused Ataullah died, and the trial continued only against Naeem. Later, following changes in jurisdiction under the National Investigation Agency Act, the case was transferred from Gorakhpur to the Special NIA Court in Lucknow,” Sonkar said.Holding that the evidence suffered from serious procedural and evidentiary deficiencies, the court acquitted Naeem of all charges and cancelled his bail bonds, while directing that the statutory bond under Section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure remain operative for six months.Soon after the court pronounced the verdict, Mohammed Naeem broke down in tears.“Now I hope people will stop calling me anti-national. For 33 years, I kept telling everyone that I am innocent, that I had been falsely implicated. Today, I feel vindicated,” he said.During the trial, the court found serious deficiencies in the prosecution’s case. The black flags, claimed to have been recovered from the scene, were never produced before the court during the trial.The court observed that neither a proper seizure memo proving their recovery nor the recovered articles themselves were presented as evidence, making the prosecution story doubtful.The court also noted that one of the prosecution’s key witnesses, constable Durvijay Singh, admitted during cross-examination that when the police reached the spot, people shouting slogans had already fled.The judgement also highlighted that the complainant and then station house officer, Pawan Kumar Singh, appeared only for examination-in-chief and was never produced for cross-examination despite repeated opportunities.The special judge observed that the second investigating officer admitted during cross-examination that he never visited the scene of the incident, recorded no fresh witness statements and filed the chargesheet solely based on material collected by the previous investigating officer.The court also questioned how the police identified Naeem and the other accused when, according to prosecution witnesses, everyone had fled before the police arrived.It observed that the prosecution failed to establish who informed the police about the identity of the accused, as no independent witness was produced to connect Naeem with the incident.
