Delhi District Court
State vs . Gulshan Rai on 22 June, 2019
IN THE COURT OF MS. RAJAT GOYAL, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE08, SOUTH EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS,
SAKET, NEW DELHI
State Vs. Gulshan Rai
FIR NO : 228/2011
P. S. : Jamia Nagar
U/s : 153A IPC and 295 A IPC
A Sl. No. of the case : 94417/2016
B Date of commission : 08.05.2011
C Date of institution of the case : 17.12.2013
D Name of complainant : Amanatullah
E Name of accused and his : Gulshan Rai, S/o Sh. Govind Ram,
parentage. R/o B35, sector 67, NOIDA, UP
20301
F Charged under sections : 153A IPC and 295 A IPC.
G Plea of accused : Not guilty
H Orders reserved on : 07.06.2019
I Final order : Accused acquitted for offences
punishable u/s 153A IPC and 295 A
IPC.
J Date of judgment : 22.06.2019
JUDGMENT:
1. Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that on 08.05.2011 within the jurisdiction of PS Jamia Nagar, accused Gulshan Rai published an article on Prophet Mohd. in comic magazine namely 'Comic FIR No.228/2011 State Vs Gulshan Rai PS Jamia Nagar Page 1 of Page 6 World' being the publisher of Diamond Comics and used words and photographs of Prophet Mohd., who is worshiped by the people practicing Muslim, faith with an intention to promote feeling of enmity and hatred between the religious groups and thereby insulted the beliefs of class of citizens of India with malicious intention to outrage the regligious beliefs of the aforesaid class and of the complainant Amanatullah. After completion of the investigation, IO filed the chargesheet for offences punishable u/s 153 A IPC and 295 A IPC.
2. Cognizance was taken in the present matter vide order dated 13.10.2014 and accused was summoned. After compliance of provisions of section 207 Cr.P.C., matter was fixed for consideration on charge. On the basis of material on record, charge u/s 153A IPC and 295A IPC was framed upon the accused, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to establish its case against the accused, prosecution has examined 3 witnesses. PW1 is complainant Amanatullah, who stated that he filed complaint dated 27.04.2011 Ex.PW1/A against the accused at PS Jamia Nagar, with respect to publication of offensive and defamatory article about Prophet Mohd. He also tendered into evidence Ex.PW 1/B and Ex.PW 1/C, which are clippings of the material published by the accused. PW2 was Inspector Jitender Singh, who proved arrest of the accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW 2/A. PW3 was IO/ SI Chandan Kumar, who proved endorsement made by SHO as Ex.PW3/A and stated that after completion of investigation, he filed chargesheet in the present case.
FIR No.228/2011 State Vs Gulshan Rai PS Jamia Nagar Page 2 of Page 6
4. Thereafter, statement of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein he stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case and that content of the article about Prophet Mohd. which was published was taken from children's encyclopedia available on the internet and that the said article was published with the intention to impart knowledge about saints in general. It was further stated by the accused that on receiving objections, apology dated 21.04.2011 was published in the Newspaper alongwith press release given to PTI. It was further stated by the accused that apology letter dated 26.04.2011 was also sent to Deoband Madarsa in this regard.
5. Matter was thereafter fixed for defence evidence. Accused examined himself as DW1 and tendered into evidence Ex. DW 1/1 which is Newspaper clipping dated 27.04.2011 containing apology/ Mafinama, Ex. DW 1/2 which are translated copies of the said mafinama, Mark DW 1/3 which is copy of letter/apology dated 26.04.2011 sent to Shahi Imam, Jama Masjid and Mark DW 1/4 which is copy of email dated 02.05.2011 sent to all the Muftis of Deoband Madarsa.
6. I have heard Ld. APP for State and Ld. Counsel for the accused persons and have carefully perused the record.
7. Ld. APP for the State has argued that all the witnesses have corroborated themselves in all material particulars and that case of the prosecution stands duly proved. However, I do not find myself to be in agreement with this submission. Accused has been charged for offences punishable under sections 153A IPC and 295 A IPC. As per section 153A IPC, culpability lies upon the person who promotes or attempts to FIR No.228/2011 State Vs Gulshan Rai PS Jamia Nagar Page 3 of Page 6 promote disharmony or feeling of enmity, hatred or illwill between different religious groups by spoken or written words on the basis of religion, race, place of brith, residence, language, caste, community or any other ground. Also, under section 153 A IPC, it is the actual promotion or an attempt to promote enmity or hatred that consitutes an offence. Further under section 295 A IPC, it must be proved by the prosecution that accused has insulted or attempted to insult religious belief of any class of citizens with a delibrate and malicious intention by using words, signs or representations so as to outrage religious feelings of any such class of citizens. Case of the prosecution against the accused is that accused has committed said offences by publishing an article on Prophet Mohd. in Comic World Magzine. Coming to offence punishable under section 153 A IPC, it has not been proved by the prosecution as to how the said article has promoted or even attempted to promote disharmony or feeling of enmity, hatred or illwill between different religious groups by spoken or written words. In fact, there is not even an allegation that any such disharmony or feeling of enmity was caused between different religious groups by publication of article in question. Though the complaint Ex. PW1/A states that accused has tried to distrub peace and tranquility in the area by publication of said article, it has not been specified in the said complaint as to how and in what manner peace and tranquility in the said area were distrubed by the article published by the accused. No such instance of distrubance has been elabrorated upon either in the complaint or in the testimony of complainant/ PW1. It must here be noted that necessary sanction u/s 196 (1) Cr.P.C., was never taken in the present matter. Thus, present case must fail due to lack of said sanction also.
FIR No.228/2011 State Vs Gulshan Rai PS Jamia Nagar Page 4 of Page 6
8. Coming to offence punishable u/s 295 A IPC, it must be proved by the prosecution that accused has insulted religious beliefs of a class of citizens by outraging their religious feelings and that act of the accused was done with deliberate and malicious intention. Existance of this deliberate and malicious intention is sine qua non to bring home guilt of the accused u/s 295 A IPC. The said intention cannot be always proved by leading direct evidence and must, at times, be gathered from the words spoken or written by the accused. Malice implies negation of bonafides. Section 295 A IPC only punishes aggravated form of insult to religion when it is perpetrated with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging religious feelings of a class of citizens. Needless to say, onus to prove malicious and deliberate act lies upon the person who so alleges. In the case in hand, the article which was published by the accused was only factual in nature and was in the nature of a short biography of Prophet Mohd. The said article states that he is worshiped by Muslims all over the world and that he was born in Mecca and that his place of birth is a pilgrimage place for Muslims. The said article further states that he married one widow namely Khadija and that at the age of 40 years, he was inspired by one Angle to spread the word of God. The said article further states that by the time Khadija died, Prophet Mohd. had made many enemies and hence, he had to run from Mecca and take shelter in Marudweep, presently known as Madina. Upon reading of the said article, I am of the opinion that no deliberate intention or malice can be attributed to the accused in publication of the said article. The entire content, tone and tenor of the said article goes to suggest that the same was published casually and without any malice. There does not seem to be any intention to hurt religious feelings of any class of citizens behind publication of said atricle. The said article is not incendiary in FIR No.228/2011 State Vs Gulshan Rai PS Jamia Nagar Page 5 of Page 6 nature. It does not seem to insult Prophet Mohd. or beliefs of any religion in any manner. Bonafide intention of the accused is also reflected in the fact that he immediately got published apology Ex. DW 1/1 in Urdu Newspaper 'Daily Milap' upon coming to know about objections of the Muslim community. Thus, in my opinion, there is absolutely nothing on record to even suggest, let alone prove, that accused had published the article in question with a deliberate and malicious intention.
9. In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. Thus, accused Gulshan Rai is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable u/s 153A IPC and 295 A IPC.
Announced in the open court
RAJAT Digitally signed
by RAJAT GOYAL
(Rajat Goyal)
Date: 2019.06.24
on 22.06.2019 GOYAL Metropolitan Magistrate08,
15:50:56 +0530
South East, Saket, New Delhi
22.06.2019
FIR No.228/2011 State Vs Gulshan Rai
PS Jamia Nagar Page 6 of Page 6