Prateek Tanmay
Mere participation in a violent protest, raising slogans against the government, or expressing dissent in an elected democracy does not amount to sedition, the Punjab and Haryana High Court observed while upholding the acquittal of four men accused of vandalising and setting ablaze an electricity office in Haryana’s Kaithal in the violence that erupted after Dera Sacha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh’s conviction in a rape case in 2017.
“A violent protest may amount to rioting but such action of violence would not be perceived as an act of bringing in hatred or contempt against Government. A sloganeering against the Government or wings of governance, in an elected democracy, would not be sufficient to slap charges of sedition against its citizens. A frustration or dis-satisfaction or even outrage is not a disaffection or hatred,” a bench of Justices Vinod S. Bhardwaj and Sukhvinder Kaur said.
The bench made the observation while dismissing the state of Haryana’s appeal challenging a trial court verdict of September 23, 2019 acquitting the accused of offences under Sections 124-A (sedition), 188, 427, 436 and 450 IPC, besides provisions of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.
According to the prosecution, a mob of 14-15 people, armed with lathis, gandasis and petrol bottles, attacked the Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam (UHBVN) office in Kalayat on August 25, 2017, damaged computers, furniture and other public property, and set the premises on fire while raising slogans in support of Ram Rahim after his conviction.
The trial court in Kaithal while acquitting the accused had recorded that the State had failed to prove its case against them. In the high court, the State contended that there was clear oral and documentary evidence establishing the accused’s involvement in the attack.
Appearing for the State, Senior Deputy Advocate General Paras Talwar further contended that the trial court “is not expected to adopt a hyper-technical approach or undertake a microscopic examination of every minor discrepancy solely to discard an otherwise credible prosecution case.”
The State also argued that the evidence established that the accused had “formed part of an unlawful assembly, indulged in acts of vandalism and violence, caused extensive damage to public property and set ablaze” the electricity office.
Story continues below this ad
Senior Advocate Hemant Bassi, assisted by advocates Gursimran Kaur and Saloni Chhabra, appearing for the respondent-accused, submitted that the State’s arguments were “vague and generic in nature” and merely reiterated the prosecution version without identifying “any specific infirmity, perversity or legal error” in the trial court judgment. He further argued that the State had “failed to point out any material piece of evidence which has either been ignored or misread by the trial court” and that the acquittal represented “a plausible and legally sustainable view of the matter.”
Rejecting the State’s challenge, the high court observed that despite being asked to point out specific evidence undermining the trial court’s findings, the State failed to do so.
The Bench noted that “none of the PW’s (Prosecution Witness) named the respondent-accused in the FIR” and that the prosecution witnesses “could not prove the presence of the respondent-accused, at the place of occurrence.”
It also found that one person’s implication rested solely on the disclosure statement of a co-accused, which “remained nothing more than a confession made while in police custody and was inadmissible in evidence in the absence of any discovery flowing therefrom.”
Story continues below this ad
The court further found serious inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence, noting that no test identification parade was conducted even though the witnesses were strangers to the accused and identified them for the first time in court.
It said the omission “assumes considerable significance and materially weakens the evidentiary value of the subsequent dock identification.”
The Bench also held that the forensic report did not detect traces of petrol, kerosene or diesel on the burnt articles despite allegations that petrol bottles had been used to set the office on fire, observing that this “materially dents the prosecution case.”
It added that the evidence was “merely suggestive of slogan against Government, which is only a means of expressing dissent and not hatred/contempt or dis-affection.”
Story continues below this ad
The high court held that the trial court had not acquitted the accused on “minor discrepancies” but on “substantial contradictions, material omissions, doubtful recoveries, lack of reliable identification, inconsistent investigation, absence of forensic corroboration and failure of the prosecution to establish the statutory ingredients of several offences…”
The Bench concluded that the prosecution had failed to move “from a broad suspicion of the accused ‘may have been’ involved to the legal requirement of an accused ‘must be involved’ in the offences,” adding that “suspicion and suppositions are probabilities and not proof.”
The appeal was accordingly dismissed and the acquittal affirmed.
