Anti-government slogans not sedition in democracy: Punjab and Haryana High Court

According to the prosecution, a mob of 14-15 people, armed with lathis, gandasis (axe-like tool) 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.

The trial court had recorded that the state had failed to prove its case against the accused and acquitted them. The state contended that the trial court had misappreciated the evidence and wrongly acquitted the accused despite clear oral and documentary evidence establishing their involvement in the attack.

Justices Vinod S Bhardwaj and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur noted that the prosecution witnesses had failed to prove that the accused were at the scene of crime.

Opposing the plea, the counsel for the accused stated that the state had failed to identify any legal flaw in the trial court’s judgment.

‘Inconsistent probe, doubtful recoveries’

The high court noted that the prosecution witnesses had failed to prove that the accused were at the scene of crime, which the state’s counsel could not dispute. “The forensic evidence also fails to lend support to the prosecution version. Despite the allegation that petrol bottles had been used for setting the UHBVN office on fire, the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban, did not detect any traces of kerosene, petrol, diesel or their residues on the burnt articles,” the court said.

The high court also noted that the allegations did not satisfy the requirements for a charge of sedition. It observed that a violent protest may amount to rioting, but it would not be perceived as an act of hatred or contempt against the government. The evidence merely suggested sloganeering against the government, which is only a means of showing protest.

It rejected the state’s argument that the trial court had ignored key evidence or committed any mistake in analysing the evidence. “…the Trial Court has not acquitted the respondents merely on account of minor discrepancies but the acquittal is founded upon substantial contradictions, material omissions, doubtful recoveries, lack of reliable identification, inconsistent investigation, absence of forensic corroboration,” the court noted.

The prosecution failed to establish the statutory ingredients of several offences alleged against the accused, it noted. It was for the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, the court held, adding that “suspicion and suppositions are probabilities and not proof.” Hence, it dismissed the state’s appeal and upheld the trial court’s acquittal order.