SIT report says charges against KSU activists in Veena George case cannot be sustained

The SIT’s central conclusion was that the KSU activists had not committed the offences listed in the original chargesheet. It therefore told the court that the charges could not be sustained. This matters because the investigation challenged the legal basis of the case arising from the alleged incident at Kannur railway station.

The team found no rioting, wrongful restraint, obstruction of public servants, or criminal trespass. It also said the protesters had not stopped the police from doing their duties or wrongfully restrained Veena George. The attempted-murder allegation had already been dropped by the first investigation team before the chargesheet was filed.

SIT chief U. Preman submitted the final report before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court in Kannur. The court will decide the next proceedings. If it accepts the report, the activists could see the case against them end or move toward closure, subject to the court’s order.

The SIT said the protesters had not committed several offences alleged in the original case. These included rioting, wrongful restraint, obstructing public servants from carrying out their official duties, and criminal trespass on railway premises. The conclusion weakened the prosecution’s original account of the incident.

The report gave specific reasons. The protesters did not obstruct the police personnel accompanying Veena George, and the Minister was not wrongfully restrained. The protesters had also entered the station after buying valid platform tickets. The attempted-murder charge, which appeared in the first information report, had already been removed by the first investigation team when it filed the chargesheet.

The SIT’s findings do not themselves decide the case. Its final report has been placed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court in Kannur. The court will determine whether proceedings should continue and what effect the findings have on the activists.

A Special Investigation Team, or SIT, is a group of investigators formed to examine a specific case. It usually reviews evidence, statements, and the actions described in the complaint or chargesheet. Its purpose is to provide a focused investigation and a reasoned conclusion about what the evidence supports.

In this case, the SIT examined allegations involving KSU activists and the alleged incident at Kannur railway station. It concluded that the protesters had not committed rioting, wrongful restraint, obstruction of public servants, or criminal trespass. SIT chief U. Preman submitted those findings as a final report to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court in Kannur.

A final report does not automatically decide guilt or innocence. It gives the court the investigation team’s conclusions and recommendations about the case. Here, the court will decide on further proceedings. The report may support ending or limiting the case, but the court’s order remains decisive.

The SIT said waving black flags, by itself, was not a criminal offence. This distinction mattered because the protesters were accused in connection with an alleged attack on Veena George. The report separated the act of displaying black flags from offences such as rioting, restraint, obstruction, or trespass.

The SIT found that the protesters did not obstruct the police accompanying the Minister. It also concluded that Veena George had not been wrongfully restrained. The report cited court observations stating that black flag protests did not constitute a criminal offence, supporting its conclusion that the protest action alone could not sustain the charges.

The finding does not mean every action during a protest is automatically lawful. It means the specific act identified in the report—waving black flags—was not itself treated as a crime. The court will now assess the final report and decide what proceedings, if any, should follow.

The SIT found that the protesters had valid permission to enter the railway station because they had purchased platform tickets. That fact directly affected the allegation of criminal trespass on railway premises. The team therefore concluded that the charge could not be sustained.

The key mechanism was the difference between entering without authorization and entering with valid tickets. The report did not treat the protesters’ presence at the station as unlawful merely because they were demonstrating there. Its conclusion addressed the specific trespass allegation in the case arising from the alleged incident involving Veena George.

This finding is part of the SIT’s broader conclusion that the original charges were unsupported. The report also rejected allegations of rioting, wrongful restraint, and obstruction of public servants. The final decision now rests with the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court in Kannur, which will determine whether the case should proceed.

The SIT said the police personnel accompanying Veena George were responsible for preventing protesters from approaching her. This duty was central to the allegation that the protesters had obstructed public servants. The report examined whether the protesters interfered with that police responsibility.

Its conclusion was that they did not. According to the SIT, the police stopped the people waving black flags, while the protesters themselves did not obstruct the police from discharging their official duties. The team also found that Veena George had not been wrongfully restrained by the protesters.

These findings weakened the charges of obstruction and wrongful restraint. They formed part of the final report submitted by SIT chief U. Preman to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court in Kannur. The court will decide whether the case continues, based on the report and the legal proceedings that follow.

The next step is judicial review of the SIT’s final report. The Judicial First Class Magistrate Court in Kannur will decide whether further proceedings should take place. Because the SIT found that the alleged offences were not committed, the report could help end or limit the case against the KSU activists if the court accepts its conclusions.

The report also creates a separate possible consequence for people connected with the investigation. The SIT had earlier recommended action against Abhilash, Veena George’s former gunman, for allegedly giving a false statement. It also recommended action against officials who allegedly failed to conduct the preliminary investigation properly.

Those recommendations are distinct from the charges against the protesters. The article does not state what action will ultimately be taken against Abhilash or the officials. The court’s decision on the final report, along with any response to the recommendations, will determine what happens next.