2017 Dera Violence: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal Of Ram Rahim Followers, Says Prosecution Failed To Prove Sedition, Arson & Vandalism

Holding that the prosecution had failed to establish the identity of the accused as well as the statutory ingredients of the offences alleged against them, including sedition, arson and mischief, the Court affirmed the trial court's acquittal.

A Division Bench of Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur observed:

"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 and failure of the prosecution to establish the statutory ingredients of several offences alleged against the respondents."

The Court was hearing an appeal filed by the State against the judgment dated September 23, 2019, whereby the Sessions Judge, Kaithal, acquitted Dharampal, Jasbir, Shiv Kumar @ Babar and Balbir of offences under Sections 124-A (sedition), 188, 427, 436, 450 and 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.

According to the prosecution, on August 25, 2017, a group of 14–15 persons armed with lathis, dandas, gandasis and petrol bottles marched towards the UHBVN office at Kalayat while raising slogans in support of Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh. It was alleged that the officials fled the premises fearing for their safety, following which the assailants vandalised office equipment and set the building on fire.

During the investigation, the police seized four motorcycles and claimed to have recovered petrol bottles and weapons at the instance of the accused. After completion of the investigation, the case proceeded to trial, where the prosecution examined 30 witnesses and produced documentary and forensic evidence. The trial court, however, acquitted all the accused, prompting the State to file the present appeal.

Before the High Court, the State argued that the trial court had misappreciated cogent oral and documentary evidence and had adopted an unduly hyper-technical approach by magnifying minor discrepancies despite the prosecution having established the respondents' involvement through eyewitness testimony and recoveries.

Senior counsel appearing for the accused, on the other hand, contended that the State had failed to identify any perversity or legal infirmity in the acquittal and had merely reiterated the prosecution's case. It was argued that the presumption of innocence stood reinforced by the acquittal and that interference in an appeal against acquittal was warranted only where the findings of the trial court were manifestly illegal or perverse.

Examining the record, the Bench noted that, despite being specifically asked, the State had failed to point out any particular document or testimony demonstrating that the trial court had erred in its appreciation of evidence. It further observed that none of the prosecution witnesses had named the accused in the FIR and that the prosecution had failed to prove their presence at the scene of the incident.

The Court found that Balbir Singh's implication rested solely on the disclosure statement of a co-accused, which had not led to the discovery of any incriminating material and was therefore inadmissible in evidence. Similarly, Shiv Kumar @ Babar's name did not figure either in the original complaint or in the statement of a police official recorded during the investigation.

The Bench also highlighted serious inconsistencies in the testimony of PW-25, the principal identifying witness, who introduced materially different versions after being declared hostile. The Court further noted that no Test Identification Parade had been conducted, even though the witnesses admittedly had no prior acquaintance with the accused, holding that the omission "materially weakens the evidentiary value of the subsequent dock identification."

The Court also found unexplained discrepancies regarding the arrest of Jasbir and Dharampal. While the prosecution claimed that they had been apprehended at the spot, the investigating officer admitted that they were, in fact, arrested several hours later from a Community Health Centre. Moreover, despite allegations that the accused had carried petrol bottles and weapons during the incident, no such recoveries were effected from the place of occurrence.

The forensic evidence, too, failed to support the prosecution's case. Despite allegations that inflammable substances had been used to set the UHBVN office on fire, the Forensic Science Laboratory report did not detect traces of petrol, diesel, kerosene or their residues on the burnt articles recovered from the site. According to the Bench, this absence of forensic corroboration "materially dents the prosecution case."

The Court further noted that the order promulgated under Section 144 CrPC, relied upon by the prosecution to establish the offence under Section 188 IPC, had been issued on August 21, 2018—nearly a year after the incident of August 2017—and was therefore of no assistance to the prosecution.

The Bench also held that the ingredients of the offence of sedition under Section 124-A IPC had not been made out. It observed that while violent protest may amount to rioting, mere sloganeering against the government in an elected democracy could not, by itself, constitute sedition:

"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."

Holding that the prosecution had failed to bridge the gap between suspicion that the accused "may have been" involved and proof that they "must be" involved, the High Court found no perversity, illegality or miscarriage of justice in the acquittal recorded by the trial court and dismissed the appeal.