The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that sloganeering against the government or its wings of governance, by itself, is not sufficient to attract the offence of sedition. The ruling came as a Division Bench of Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur upheld the acquittal of persons booked in connection with the violence that broke out after the conviction of Dera Sacha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh in August 2017.

The Bench observed that such expression in an elected democracy was only a means of dissent and could not be equated with hatred, contempt or disaffection against the government. Dismissing the State's appeal against the Kaithal Sessions Judge judgment acquitting the accused, the Bench held that the ingredients of Section 124-A (sedition) of the Indian Penal Code were not made out.

"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 dissatisfaction or even outrage is not a disaffection or hatred," the Bench observed.

It further observed that courts were, as such, required to ensure “when the charge becomes grave and the punishment harsh, the ingredients and their existence is strict. The evidence on record is merely suggestive of slogan against government, which is only a means of expressing dissent and not hatred/contempt or disaffection."

The appeal arose out of the judgment dated September 23, 2019, passed by the Sessions Judge, in an FIR registered on August 25, 2017, under Sections 124-A, 188, 427, 436, 450, 120-B and 34 of the IPC, along with the provisions of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act at Kalayat police station in Kaithal district.

The Bench was told that the FIR was registered after Kalayat U HBVN Sub-Divisional Officer complained that a group of about 14-15 persons, armed with lathis, dandas, gandasis and bottles containing petrol, proceeded towards the office while raising slogans. Apprehending danger to their lives, the complainant and other officials left the premises. The assailants allegedly entered the office, damaged computers, printers and furniture and set the office on fire before the blaze was extinguished with the assistance of the Fire Brigade.

The prosecution alleged that the accused were raising slogans in support of Dera Sacha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh and indulged in vandalism and arson in protest against the judgment rendered against him.

Examining the evidence, the High Court found no ground to interfere with the acquittal. The Bench noted that the State, despite being asked, failed to point out any material on the basis of which the trial court findings could be faulted.

"Even though the State counsel had been asked to refer to the specific documents and excerpts of the testimonies of the witnesses, on the strength whereof, the findings recorded by the trial Court could be faulted, however, no such specific reference has been made," the Bench observed

The court also noted that the prosecution failed to establish the presence of the accused at the spot. It observed: "State counsel is also not in a position to dispute that the prosecution witnesses could not prove the presence of the respondent-accused, at the place of occurrence. Undisputedly, none of the prosecution witnesses named the respondent-accused in the FIR."

The Division Bench also found the investigation wanting on the issue of identification. "It is worthwhile to notice that no test identification parade was ever conducted, despite the claimed position that none of the witnesses had any prior acquaintance with the accused persons. The accused were identified for the first time during their appearance in Court," the Bench observed.

Referring to the importance of such a procedure, the Bench said: "In criminal jurisprudence, where the identity of an accused constitutes the foundation of the prosecution case and the witnesses are strangers to the accused, holding of a test identification parade assumes considerable importance."

The court added that there was "absolutely no material to indicate that any of the respondents were previously known either to the complainant or to the witnesses examined by the prosecution". As such, the omission to conduct a test identification parade "assumes considerable significance and materially weakens the evidentiary value of the subsequent dock identification."

The High Court held that the acquittal was not based on minor discrepancies but on serious shortcomings in the prosecution case. It observed: "It is thus evident that 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 Bench further held that the State had failed to show that the trial court had ignored any material evidence or recorded findings that were perverse or contrary to the record. "The conclusions recorded by the Trial Court are fully borne out from the material available on record and represent a possible, reasonable and legally sustainable view," the court added

Reiterating the settled standard of proof in criminal law, the court observed: "The burden lay squarely upon the prosecution to establish the guilt of the respondents beyond all reasonable doubt but it has failed to cross over from a broad suspicion of the accused 'may have been' involved to the legal requirement of an accused 'must be involved' in the offences. Suspicion and suppositions are probabilities and not proof."

Finding "no illegality, perversity, impropriety, misreading of evidence or miscarriage of justice" in the judgment of acquittal, the Division Bench dismissed the State's appeal and affirmed the acquittal.

 The ruling assumes significance as allegations of raising anti-government slogans are frequently invoked alongside allegations of violence during protests. The High Court has drawn a distinction between offences arising out of acts of violence and the offence of sedition, holding that while violent conduct may attract other penal provisions, the ingredients of Section 124-A IPC are not satisfied merely because slogans are raised against the government. It underscored that dissent, frustration or outrage against the government cannot, by themselves, be equated with hatred, contempt or disaffection.