IMPORTANT POINT
Merely inciting the feeling of one community or group without any reference to any other community or group can not attract offence under Section 153-A or 505 I.P.C.

Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 124-A-Appellant convicted for offence under but acquitted of offences under TADA-Appeal-Confession made before police will not be admissible-Ban would not wane off in respect of offences under Penal Code merely because trial was held by Designated Court for offences under TADA as well. (Para 5)
       (ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 124-A-Sedition-Decisive ingredient of offence is doing of certain acts which would bring the Government established by law in India into hatred to contempt etc. Appellant was alleged to have spread communal hatred among Muslim youth and exhorted them to undergo training in armed militancy-Nothing against appellant that he did anything as against the Govt. of India-Charge was even bereft of crucial allegations-Conviction was unsustainable. (Paras 2 & 6 to 8)
       (iii) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 505-Words "whoever makes, publishes or circulates" cannot be interpreted disjunctively but only as supplementary to each other. (Para 12)
       (iv) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 153-A & 505-Promotion of feeling of enmity, hatred or ill will "between different" religious or racial or language or regional groups or castes-At least two groups or communities should be involved-Inciting the feelings of one community or group without any reference to any other community would hot attract either of two offences-Appellant was telling others that Army Personnel were committing attrocities on Muslims in Kashmir-Appellants could not be held guilty of either of offences. (Paras 9 to 16)
       (v) Indian Arms Act-Section 25(18)-Recovery of one revolver and two cartridges from appellant-Conviction challenged on ground that articles were not sealed after seizure and were left at Police Station for humber of days before it were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory-No allegation at any stage of case that revolver and cartridges were tampered with by police-Particulars of weapon were given in the seizure memo and same tallied with weapon on examination by ballistic expert-Identity of weapon stood established beyond doubt-Conviction and sentence of three years imprisonment called for no interference. (Paras 17 to 22)
       Result: Appeal allowed partly.

JUDGMENT

Thomas, J.-Bilal Ahmad Kaloo, a Kashmiri youth had a sojourn in the city of Hyderabad and was involved in a prosecution under Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, (for Short 'TADA'). Though the Designated Court under TADA has acquitted him of the offences under TADA he was convicted of sedition under Section 124-A of Indian Penal Code and was sentences to imprisonment for life, besides being convicted of certain other lesser offences for which a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years was awarded under each count. This appeal has been preferred by the said convicted person under Section 19 of the TADA.

2. The case against the appellant in short is the following. Appellant was an active member of a militant outfit called A1- Jehad which was formed with the ultimate object of liberating Kashmir from India Union. With this in mind appellant spread communal hatred among the Muslim youth in the old city of Hyderabad and exhorted them to undergo training in armed militancy and offered them arms and ammunitions. He himself was in possession of lethal weapons like country-made revolver and live cartridges. He was propagating among the Muslims that in Kashmir Muslims were being subjected to attrocities by the Indian Army personnel.

3. During the period when series of bomb-blasting occurred in the city of Hyderabad the police kept a close watch on the activities of the appellant who was then staying in a room adjacent to Masjid-e-Niyameth Kha-ealf at Mir-ka-Daira at Haribowli in Hyderabad. He was arrested on 19.1.1994 and after recording his confessional statement the police seized a revolver and two cartridges, which were produced by him. After investigation was completed he was challaned before the Designated Court at Hyderabad for offences under Sections 124-A, 436, 153-A and 505(2) IPC, and under Sections 3(3), 4(3) and 5 of the TADA, and also under Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act.

4. As mentioned above the Designated Court acquitted him of the offences under TADA but convicted him of the offences under the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act and was sentenced as aforesaid.

5. While dealing with the offences of which appellant was convicted there is no question of looking into the confessional statement attributed to him, much less relying on it since he was acquitted of all offences under TADA. Any confession made to a police officer is inadmissible in evidence as for these offences and hence it is fairly conceded that the said ban would not wane off in respect of offences under the Penal Code merely because the trial was held by the Designated Court for offences under TADA as well. Hence the case against him would stand or fall depending on the other evidence.

6. The decisive ingredient for establishing the offence of Sedition under Section 124-A IPC is the doing of certain acts which would being the Government established by law in India into hatred or contempt etc. In this case, there is not even a suggestion that appellant did anything as against the Government of India or any other Government of the State. The charge framed against the appellant contains no averment that appellant did anything as against the Government.

7. A Constitution Bench of this Court has stated the law in Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar1, as under:

"Now the expression 'the Government established by law' has to be distinguished from the persons for the time being engaged in carrying on the administration. 'Government established by law' is the visible symbol of the State. The very existence of the State will be in jeopardy if the Government established by law is subverted. Hence, the continued existence of the Government established by law is an essential condition of the stability of the State. That is why 'sedition', as the offence is Section 124A has been characterised, comes, under Chapter VI relating to offences against the State. Hence any acts within the meaning of Secti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

IMPORTANT POINTMerely inciting the feeling of one community or group without any reference to any other community or group can not attract offence under Section 153-A or 505 I.P.C.

Cases Referred (3)

IMPORTANT POINT
Merely inciting the feeling of one community or group without any reference to any other community or group can not attract offence under Section 153-A or 505 I.P.C.