Delhi High Court
State (Delhi Admn.) vs Rajpal Singh Shastri on 23 February, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2005(81)DRJ209
Author: R.S. Sodhi
Bench: R.S. Sodhi
JUDGMENT R.S. Sodhi, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 3rd August, 1984, of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, whereby the learned Magistrate was pleased to acquit the respondent herein of the offence/charge under Sections 153, 295 and 505 IPC.
2. The brief facts of the case, as has been noted by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, are as under :
"Raj Pal Shastri S/o Surya Dev, hereinafter referred to as accused was challaned by Crime Branch, Central District for offences under Section 153, 295 and 505 IPC on the allegations that he being editor of Hindi monthly journal titled "Madhur Lok" printed and published articles with a view to promote enmity and hatred between Muslims and Sikhs and also insulted the muslims by writing such articles in the issue of September and October, 1981. Both these magazines containing alleged offending articles have been placed on record as Ex P-1 and Ex P-2.
2. Accused on appearance was given copies of documents and charge against him under Section 295A IPC and Section 153A IPC was framed to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Accused, however, admits that he is the Editor as well as publisher of the magazines containing impugned articles but his plea is that he did not publish these articles to injure the religious feelings of any section of society and that all these publications are bona fide and that the case has been falsely made out against him so as to pressurise him not to write fearlessly as a journalist on social and political problems facing the country. He further stated in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that the articles had been written in the interest of propagation of Arya Samajik ideals and to promote communal harmony and peace in the country."
3. The trial court upon appreciation of the evidence on record came to a finding that the aforesaid publication was not one that could attract the offences for which the accused was charged.
4. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the State, I have gone through the record of the case, in particular the offending article. I find there is nothing on record to show that anything written therein had caused any reaction in the public or was of a nature that would attract Section 153. The only evidence on record is the article itself and the court is left to make up its mind whether reading of such an article would be punishable within the mischief of Section 153. The trial court while analysing the article published in September, 1981 has held that the article read as a whole rather call upon the Sikhs not to work for disharmony among various communities as it will lead to the division of the country. It further held that the article appears to be political in nature and as such is not covered under Section 153.
5. While dealing with the charge under Section 295, the trial court has held that the Article read as a whole does appear to be a attack on the muslim religion but it attemps to expose certain mohammaden leaders who in the name of religion exploit the muslim masses for their selfish ends. This the court held was also not sufficient to attract the mischief under Section 295.
6. Having given my careful thought and having evaluated the material on record, I find that the view taken by the trial court is not perverse and although another view is possible, yet this in itself would not be sufficient to reverse a judgment of acquittal. I may point out that there is a presumption of innocence of respondent which has been strengthened by a judgment of acquittal. This court should interfere only if no other view was possible or the reasoning of the trial court was totally absurd. In the present case, as already discussed, the view taken by the trial court is plausible. Reference may be had to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Shri Gopal and Anr. Vs. Subhash and Ors. [2004 (1) JCC 439] and Ram Swaroop and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan [2004 (1) JCC 555]. In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment dated 3rd August, 1994 of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi need not be interfered with.