P&H High Court Upholds Arms Act Charge Against Sikh Man Accused Of Using Kirpan In Assault, Says Article 25 Protection To Be Decided In Trial

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has said that a Sikh man accused of using a Kirpan to cause injury cannot claim the constitutional protection available under Explanation I to Article 25 of the Constitution at the stage of framing of charge, holding that whether the Kirpan was being carried as an essential article of faith or was used as a weapon can only be determined at trial.The Court thus upheld the charge of Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder) against a group of accused persons who allegedly attacked a complainant with swords following an altercation.Justice Virinder Aggarwal said, "There can be no quarrel with the proposition that a follower of the Sikh religion has a constitutional right to wear and carry a Kirpan as an article of faith. However, whether petitioner No. 1 is entitled to claim the benefit of the constitutional protection under Article 25 of the Constitution is a question which would necessarily depend upon evidence to be adduced during the course of trial as there are allegations that Kirpan was used to cause injury on the person of complainant and was used as weapon not as an article of faith."The Court added that, at this stage, no material has been placed before the Court to conclusively establish that petitioner No. 1 is an Amritdhari Sikh or that the Kirpan allegedly carried by him was being worn or carried as an essential article of faith. "These are disputed questions of fact which cannot be conclusively determined at the stage of framing of charge."As per the prosecution, on the evening of August 8, 2023, the complainant Harjeet Singh, along with five companions, visited Brown Bakery Restaurant at Model Town, Karnal, after completing Bhangra practice. While standing near their vehicles outside the restaurant after dinner, they noticed accused Kulwant Singh seated in a black Thar Jeep. The prosecution alleged that Kulwant Singh repeatedly lowered his window, stared aggressively at the complainant's group while twisting his moustaches, drove around them, played loud music, and continued consuming liquor.The complainant received a phone call from Gurbakhsh Singh, the cousin of Kulwant Singh informing him that Kulwant Singh was under the influence of liquor and that he was coming to pacify him. However, shortly thereafter, additional accused persons arrived at the spot in separate vehicles and allegedly launched a concerted attack. The prosecution specifically alleged that accused Kulwant Singh attacked the complainant with a Kirpan (sword) aiming for his head; that accused Mehtab Singh inflicted a sword blow on the complainant's forehead with the intention to kill; and that accused Simran Singh struck the complainant on the shoulder with a sword. Several unidentified associates allegedly also assaulted the group with sticks (dandas), shouting that they had found the complainant unarmed and would kill him. The complainant allegedly became unconscious and regained consciousness only the following day.The Additional Sessions Judge, framed charges against the petitioners under Sections 307, 323, 324, 34 and 506 IPC (corresponding to Sections 109, 115(2), 118(1), 3(5) and 351(2) BNS, 2023) and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. The petitioners filed the present revision petition seeking discharge.Senior Counsel for the petitioners inter alia submitted that there was no premeditation, no exhortation attributed to the petitioners, and no repeated blows were inflicted. The Medical Officer ultimately opined all injuries to be simple in nature, with no fracture and no injury to the brain, and the charge under Section 307 was therefore unsustainable.It was further submitted that one of the petitioners (Petitioner No. 1) professes the Sikh faith and was carrying a Kirpan, which enjoys constitutional protection under Explanation I to Article 25 of the Constitution. Mere possession or carrying of a Kirpan by a Sikh cannot constitute an offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act.As per the status report filed by the State, the Medical Officer who examined the two Kirpans/swords recovered at the instance of the petitioners pursuant to their disclosure statements opined that the injuries in the MLR could not have been caused by those weapons, as both had blunt edges on either side. Since the prosecution's own recovered weapons were thus disconnected from the occurrence, the prosecution version was rendered doubtful.After hearing the submissions, the Court accepted the settled legal position that a follower of the Sikh religion has a constitutional right to wear and carry a Kirpan as an article of faith by virtue of Explanation I to Article 25. However, it held that whether petitioner No. 1 is entitled to claim this constitutional protection is a question that necessarily depends on evidence to be adduced at trial. The Court noted that no material had been placed before it to conclusively establish that petitioner No. 1 is an Amritdhari Sikh or that the Kirpan was being worn or carried as an...

P&H High Court Upholds Arms Act Charge Against Sikh Man Accused Of Using Kirpan In Assault, Says Article 25 Protection To Be Decided In Trial

Aiman J. Chishti

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Aiman J. Chishti

P&H High Court Upholds Arms Act Charge Against Sikh Man Accused Of Using Kirpan In Assault, Says Article 25 Protection To Be Decided In Trial

Aiman J. Chishti

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Aiman J. Chishti

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers