The High Court of Punjab & Haryana (Chandigarh Bench) has held that mere sloganeering against the Government, even in the backdrop of a violent protest, does not by itself satisfy “sedition” under Section 124-A IPC unless the strict ingredients of hatred, contempt or disaffection against the Government are clearly made out. The Court drew a distinction between dissent or outrage and sedition.
Since the prosecution had failed to move from suspicion that the accused “may have been” involved to proof that they “must be” involved beyond reasonable doubt, the Court held that the acquittal was not based on minor discrepancies but on substantial contradictions, material omissions, doubtful recoveries, weak identification evidence, inconsistent investigation, absence of forensic support, and failure to establish the essential ingredients of the offences alleged.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur noted at the outset that, despite being asked, the State could not point out specific documents or witness testimony showing how the trial court’s findings were wrong. The Court also recorded that the prosecution witnesses could not prove the presence of the accused at the place of occurrence and that none of the prosecution witnesses had named the accused in the FIR.
As regards accused Balbir Singh, the Court observed that he was neither named at the earliest stage nor identified by any prosecution witness during investigation or trial. The State also could not show any independent incriminating material against him in the police report under Section 173(2) CrPC. His implication rested only on the disclosure statement of a co-accused, which, in the absence of any discovery of a new fact or incriminating article, was held to be no more than a confession in police custody and therefore inadmissible as substantive evidence. On Shiv Kumar @ Babar also, the Court found weakness in the prosecution case, as his name did not appear in the initial complaint.
The High Court closely examined the testimony of PW-25, who was presented as the main identifying witness. It found that although he identified Jasbir Singh, Dharam Pal and Shiv Kumar @ Babar in Court, he admitted he could not specify which accused was carrying which weapon. The Court further noted that after being declared hostile, he gave a changed version by assigning petrol bottles to Jasbir Singh and Dharam Pal and a danda to Shiv Kumar, whereas his earlier Section 161 statement had alleged that Shiv Kumar was carrying a gandasi. The Court found this inconsistency material, especially because his Court statement also added a new allegation that Shiv Kumar had broken glass panes of both the Rest House and UHBVN office, whereas the prosecution had not proved any damage to the Rest House.
The Court treated the absence of a Test Identification Parade as a major weakness. Since the prosecution had no material to show that the witnesses already knew the accused, and the accused were identified for the first time in Court, the omission to hold a Test Identification Parade significantly weakened the value of the dock identification.
The prosecution version about arrest and recovery also did not inspire confidence. While the case suggested that Jasbir Singh and Dharam Pal were apprehended from the spot, the investigating officer stated that they were actually arrested later from the Community Health Centre, Kalayat. The Court found no satisfactory explanation for this contradiction. It also found it doubtful that although the accused were allegedly carrying petrol bottles and weapons during the occurrence, no such articles were recovered from the spot, and the prosecution explanation that they were thrown away nearby appeared inherently improbable.
The forensic evidence also did not support the prosecution. The FSL report did not detect any traces of kerosene, petrol, diesel or their residues on the burnt articles, even though the prosecution case was that petrol bottles had been used to set the UHBVN office on fire. The Court held that this lack of forensic corroboration materially damaged the prosecution story on the allegation of mischief by fire.
The High Court also noted that PW-25 claimed to have chased the assailants for nearly one kilometre and to have repeatedly informed his superior officers by phone, but he neither photographed nor videographed the assailants despite having a mobile phone. The Court additionally noted that two inconsistent Section 161 CrPC statements of the same witness had come on record, seriously affecting the credibility of the prosecution and prejudicing the defence.
Even the complainant PW-2 did not support the prosecution on the identity of the accused, and his knowledge of the assailants’ identity was hearsay. None of the UHBVN employees examined by the prosecution identified Jasbir Singh or Dharam Pal during trial. PW-16 was also treated with caution because of local village relationships, prior disputes and RTI-related hostility involving accused Shiv Kumar @ Babar. The Court further found suspicious that the case property allegedly recovered at Dharampal’s instance was signed by Jasbir, that no explanation was given for this, and that the case property itself was not produced in Court.
The Court also held that the ingredients of Section 124-A IPC were not satisfied. It observed that even if the protest was violent, such violence would amount to rioting, but not automatically to bringing hatred or contempt against the Government. The Court said that sloganeering against the Government or its wings in an elected democracy would not by itself justify a charge of sedition, and that frustration, dissatisfaction or outrage cannot be equated with disaffection or hatred.
Briefly, the State of Haryana has filed an appeal against the acquittal of Dharampal and other accused by the Sessions Judge, Kaithal, in a case arising out of an FIR dated Aug 25, 2017. The case was registered under Sections 124-A, 188, 427, 436, 450 and 120-B read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, in relation to an attack on the UHBVN office at Kalayat. The trial court had acquitted the accused, and the State sought reversal of that acquittal.
According to the prosecution, on Aug 25, 2017, a group of about 14–15 persons came towards the UHBVN office raising slogans, allegedly armed with lathis, dandas, gandasis and petrol bottles. The complainant and other officials fled from the office out of fear. It was alleged that the persons entered the office, damaged computers, printers and furniture, and set the office on fire. The prosecution case further was that the assailants were raising slogans in support of Dera Sacha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh and were protesting against the judgment passed against him.
During investigation, the police inspected the spot, prepared site plans, seized four motorcycles, recorded disclosure statements of some accused, and claimed recoveries of petrol bottles, danda and gandasi at their instance. Photographs and a compact disc relating to the scene of occurrence were also taken into possession. After investigation, the police filed a report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., and charges were framed under Sections 188, 436, 427, 450 and 124-A read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the 1984 Act.
The prosecution examined a large number of witnesses including the complainant, UHBVN employees said to be eyewitnesses, police officials, forensic expert and formal witnesses. The defence also led evidence, including documentary material and witnesses seeking to challenge the prosecution version and the identity of the accused. Eventually, the trial court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the case and acquitted all the accused.
