SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1958 Supreme(SC) 101

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
25th August, 1958.
B.P. SINHA, S. JAFER IMAM AND K.N. WANCHOO, JJ.
S. Veerabadran Chettiar, Appellant
Versus
E. V. Ramaswami Naicker and others, Respondents.
Criminal Appeal No. 49 of 1956.
Advocates Appeared
Mr. R. Ganapathy Iyer, Advocate and Mr. G. Gopala Krishnan, Advocate of M/s. Gagrat and Co., Advocates, for the Appellant.

Advocates:
G.GOPALAKRISHNAN, R.Ganapathy Iyer

The words "any object held sacred by any class of persons" in S. 295 of the Indian Penal Code have been used in their fullest amplitude by the Legislature, in order to include any object consecrated or otherwise, which is held sacred by any class of persons, not necessarily belonging to a different religion or creed.

Headnote:

INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 - SECTION 295 - OBJECT HELD SACRED - INTERPRETATION - IDOLS IN TEMPLES OR IDOLS CARRIED IN PROCESSIONS ON FESTIVAL OCCASIONS - NOT THE ONLY OBJECTS HELD SACRED - ANY OBJECT, HOWEVER TRIVIAL OR DESTITUTE OF REAL VALUE IN ITSELF, IF REGARDED AS SACRED BY ANY CLASS OF PERSONS, WOULD COME WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE PENAL SECTION.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant filed a petition of complaint against the respondents, alleging that they had broken an idol of God Ganesa in public with the intention of insulting the religious feelings of the Hindu community. The petition was dismissed by the magistrate and the sessions judge on the ground that the image of God Ganesa was not an object held sacred by any class of persons. The High Court also dismissed the revision petition filed by the appellant.

Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court held that the courts below had erred in their interpretation of the crucial words of S. 295 of the Indian Penal Code. The words "any object held sacred by any class of persons" have been used in their fullest amplitude by the Legislature, in order to include any object consecrated or otherwise, which is held sacred by any class of persons, not necessarily belonging to a different religion or creed.

Issues: Whether the image of God Ganesa was an object held sacred by any class of persons.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that any object, however trivial or destitute of real value in itself, if regarded as sacred by any class of persons would come within the meaning of the penal section. Nor is it absolutely necessary that the object, in order to be held sacred, should have been actually worshipped. An object may be held sacred by a class of persons without being worshipped by them.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, but the court warned that if there is a recurrence of such a foolish behaviour on the part of any section of the community, those charged with the duty of maintaining law and order will apply the law in the sense in which the court had interpreted it.

Judgement

B. P. SINHA, J. : The only question for determination in this appeal by special leave, is whether the petition of complaint, disclosed a prima facie offence under S. 295 of the Indian Penal Code. The courts below have taken the view that it did not, and on that ground, it stood summarily dismissed, before evidence pro and con had been recorded.

2. It appears that the appellant filed a petition of complain in the court of the Additional First-Class Magistrate, Tiruchirappalli, against the respondents, three in number. The petition of complaint alleged inter alia that the first accused is the leader of Dravida Kazakam (a community of persons who profess to be religious reformers, one of whole creeds is to carry on propaganda against idol worship), and as such, he was out to "vilify a certain section of the Hindu community and do propaganda by holding meetings and writing articles". It is further alleged in the petition of complainant that recently, the first accused "announced his intention of breaking the image of God Ganesa, the God sacred to the Saiva Section of the Hindu Community on 27-5-1953, in a public meeting at Town Hall. This caused terror-commotion in the mind of the Saivite Section of the Hindu Community." The complainant claims to be a Saivite. The complainant further alleged in his petition that on 27-5-1953, at about 5.30 p.m. the accused broke an idol of God Ganesa in public at the Town Hall Maidan, and before breaking the idol, he made a speech, and expressly stated that he intended to insult the feelings of the Hindu community by breaking the idol of God Ganesa. The said act of breaking the idol was alleged to have been actively abetted by instigation and aid by the other two accused persons, who also made speeches. The petition of complaint also alleged that the said act of breaking the image of God Ganesa was done with the intention of insulting the religious feelings of certain sections of the Hindu community who hold God Ganesa in veneration, and that the acts complained of, amounted to offences under Ss. 295 and 295A of the Indian Penal Code. On those allegations, the petition of complaint (dated 5-6-1953) prayed that processes might issue against the three accused persons. In the list of witnesses appended to the petition figured the Additional District Magistrate, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, the Town Sub-Inspector of police, Tiruchi Fort, and Sub-Magistrate, Trichy town. On the same date, the learned magistrate examined the complainant on oath. The complainant made statements in support of his allegations in the petition of complaint. Thereupon, the learned magistrate directed that the petition of complaint be sent to the Circle Inspector of Police, Trichy, for inquiry and report under S. 202, Criminal Procedure Code. On 26-6-1953, on receipt of the police report which "showed that though the occurrence as alleged had taken place it was a point of law if the act of the accused would amount to any offence," the learned magistrate passed his order, dismissing the complaint under Sect. 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In the course of his order, the learned Magistrate observed as follows :

"The mud figure of Ganesa alleged to have been broken by accused 1 is not an object held sacred or worshipped by any class of persons. Simply because it resembled the God Ganesa held in veneration by a section it cannot become an object held sacred. Even Ganesa idol abandoned by the people as unworthy of worship loses its sanctity and it is no longer an object held sacred by anybody, since such given up idols are found in several places of defilement. It is not an offence if a person treads upon any such abandoned idol. Therefore, the breaking of mud figure of Ganesa does not amount to an offence under Section 295, Indian Penal Code."

"The speeches delivered by the accused with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging religious feelings of a community, no doubt amount to an offence under S. 295A. India










Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top