Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana high court has held that merely raising slogans against the govt in a democratic setup could not, by itself, amount to sedition. The court made the observation while dismissing the Haryana govt’s appeal against the acquittal of individuals accused of vandalising and setting on fire an electricity department office during the violence that followed the 2017 rape conviction of Dera Sacha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh.A division bench comprising Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur upheld the trial court’s decision acquitting the accused of several charges, including sedition under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code.In its July 2 judgement, the court observed that while violent protests might constitute rioting, such acts did not automatically amount to promoting hatred or contempt against the govt. It emphasised that criticism or sloganeering against the govt or its institutions was a legitimate form of protest in an elected democracy and could not, by itself, justify a sedition charge.According to the prosecution, a group of 14-15 persons armed with lathis, gandasis (axe-like weapons), and petrol bottles attacked the Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam (UHBVN) office in Kalayat on Aug 25, 2017. The mob allegedly damaged computers, furniture, and other public property before setting the premises ablaze while chanting slogans in support of Ram Rahim.The trial court, however, found that the prosecution failed to establish the accused persons’ involvement beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted them. Challenging the acquittal, the Haryana govt argued that the trial court improperly assessed the oral and documentary evidence and ignored material proving the accused ‘s participation in the attack.The high court rejected these contentions, noting that prosecution witnesses failed to place the accused at the crime scene. Significantly, the forensic evidence also weakened the prosecution’s case. Despite allegations that petrol bottles were used to start the fire, the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), Madhuban, did not detect traces of petrol, kerosene, diesel, or related residues on the burnt material recovered from the site.The bench further observed that the allegations did not satisfy the essential ingredients of the offence of sedition. The evidence, at best, suggested anti- govt sloganeering, which the court described as a method of expressing dissent rather than inciting hatred against the state.Rejecting the state’s claim that the trial court overlooked crucial evidence, the high court noted that the acquittal resulted from significant shortcomings in the prosecution’s case, including material contradictions, doubtful recoveries, unreliable identification of the accused, investigation inconsistencies, and the absence of forensic corroboration.The court also held that the prosecution failed to prove the essential elements of several offences invoked against the accused. Reiterating the principle that criminal guilt must be established beyond a reasonable doubt, the bench observed that “suspicion and suppositions are probabilities and not proof”.Consequently, the high court dismissed the state’s appeal and affirmed the trial court’s acquittal of the accused.MSID:: 132393589 413 |
