The admissibility of evidence, especially tape recorded statements, is crucial for establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

( 1 ) THIS Revision Petition is preferred under section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr. P. C. by the petitioner against the order of the learned additional C. J. M. , Shimoga, dated 31-8-1979 in c. C. No. 2728/1975 convicting the petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 298 of I. P. C. and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month and also against the judgment dated 8-1-1987 of the learned Sessions judge, Shimoga, in Criminal Appeal No. 62/1979 filed by the petitioner, confirming the conviction of the petitioner and reducing the sentence to one of fine only.

( 2 ) I have heard the learned counsel for thepetitioner, the learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1 and the learned Government Pleader for Respondent No. 2 and perused the records of the case.

( 3 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 filed a complaint inthe Court of Additional C. J. M. , Shimoga against the petitioner and 14 other persons alleging that the petitioner in his meetings held on 27-5- 1975, 28-5-1975, 31-5-1975 and on 4-6-1975 in various places in Shimoga Town made speeches and made some remarks with intention to would the religious feelings of the particular sect and thereby he has committed an offence punishable under Section 298 of IPC. The learned magistrate after recording the evidence and hearing both sides convicted the petitioner for the said offence and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 1,000/ -. The petitioner challenged the said order in Criminal Appeal No. 62/1979 in the court of the Sessions Judge, Shimoga. The learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence to one of fine only. Against the said orders of the Courts below, the petitioner has preferred this Revision petition.

( 4 ) THE gist of the case of the Respondentno. 1 is that he is a Muslim following Tableequi school of thought and the petitioner is also Muslim following Sunni faith. The petitioner is also an Imam of a Sunni Masjid of Bombay and Accused No. 2 to Accused No. 4 invited him to the shimoga and he came to Shimoga and delivered speeches at Azadnagar on 27-5-1975, at Tank mohalla on 28-5-1975, at Ameer Ahamed Circle on 31-5-1975 and at Marnamibylu on 4-6-1975. In all these speeches he deliberately and malaciously and with intention to outrage the religious feelings of followers of Deoband school of thought and Tableequi Jamait made certain remarks wounding the religious feelings of the complainant and his followers.

( 5 ) THE complainant's case is that thepetitioner stated in his said speeches that Tablee- qui people are "kafirs" arid not Muslims and experts of Tabliqui Jamait are ignorant of basic fundamentals of religion and men folk of Tablee- qui Jamait are sending their women before the learned people of Sunni and that Tableequi jamait people say one thing and act the other and that Ashraf Ali Thanavi, Rasheed Ahamed, nanoti and Khaleel Ahamed are "kafirs" and that the Tableequi people should not be allowed to come to the Mosque and that they should not be permitted to be burried in the Muslim graveyards and they should not be provided with the register of marriages etc. It cannot be disputed that these words by themselves are enough to outrage the religious sentiments of any class and wound their feelings, but the real, question in this case is whether the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Accused No. 1 had made these remarks in his speeches. The petitioner has denied to have made these remarks. Therefore, the burden was on the prosecution to prove that the inflamatory speeches wounding the religious feelings of the complainant and his followers were really delivered by the petitioner in the meetings, as alleged by the complainant.

( 6 ) IN order to prove his case, the complainant examined himself and P. Ws. 2- to 5 asmembers of the audience who heard the