Court Affirms Trial Court's Decision, Citing Lack of Evidence and Substantial Contradictions
In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the acquittal of Dharampal and others in a case involving allegations of vandalism, arson, and sedition. The case, which stemmed from a protest following a judgment against the head of Dera Sacha Sauda, Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh, has been closely watched due to its implications on public order and freedom of expression.
The High Court, in its detailed judgment, affirmed the decision of the Sessions Judge, Kaithal, who had acquitted the accused due to material lapses in the prosecution's case. The court noted substantial contradictions in the evidence presented, lack of reliable identification, inconsistent investigation, absence of forensic corroboration, and failure to establish the statutory ingredients of the alleged offences.
The case was initiated following a complaint by Sandeep Bharat, Sub-Divisional Officer, UHBVN, Kalayat, who alleged that a group of individuals armed with lathis and petrol bottles caused extensive damage to the office property and set it ablaze. Despite the serious nature of the allegations, the prosecution struggled to substantiate its claims.
Key issues highlighted in the judgment included the absence of a Test Identification Parade (TIP), which critically weakened the evidentiary value of witness identification. The court observed that none of the witnesses had prior acquaintance with the accused, and the prosecution's failure to conduct a TIP was a significant oversight.
Moreover, forensic evidence did not support the prosecution's narrative, as the Forensic Science Laboratory report found no traces of inflammable substances on the burnt articles. This lack of corroboration undermined the prosecution's case regarding the use of petrol bottles to ignite the fire.
The High Court also addressed the charge of sedition under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, remarking that violent protests might constitute rioting but do not equate to sedition. The court emphasized that expressions of dissent through slogans against the government are not synonymous with hatred or contempt towards the government.
The appellate court reiterated the principle that a judgment of acquittal carries a reinforced presumption of innocence, and interference is warranted only if findings are patently illegal, perverse, or result in miscarriage of justice. In this case, the prosecution failed to provide compelling evidence to overturn the trial court's decision.
The judgment has been seen as a reaffirmation of judicial standards in criminal jurisprudence, where the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court's decision is a reminder of the importance of robust evidence and procedural integrity in upholding justice.
Bottom Line:
Acquittal in a criminal trial based on substantial contradictions, material omissions, doubtful recoveries, lack of reliable identification, inconsistent investigation, absence of forensic corroboration, and failure of prosecution to establish statutory ingredients of alleged offences.
Statutory provision(s): Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 124A, 188, 427, 436, 450, 120B, 34; Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 Sections 3 and 4; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Sections 313, 161, 173, 207, 144
State of Haryana v. Dharampal, (Punjab And Haryana)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2939855
