The Chhattisgarh High Court has reaffirmed that deliberate distribution of literature insulting religious beliefs constitutes a criminal offence under Section 295(A) of the Indian Penal Code, provided the prosecution establishes malicious intent and compliance with mandatory procedural safeguards. This judgment clarifies the evidentiary threshold for prosecuting offences against religious sentiments and underscores the importance of procedural compliance under Section 196 of the CrPC.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicants, six individuals residing in Durg and Rajnandgaon districts of Chhattisgarh, were charged with distributing books containing derogatory content targeting the religious beliefs of the Kabir Panthi community. The incident occurred on 14.02.2014 at approximately 4:00 to 4:30 PM near Hospital Road in village Damakheda, under Police Station Simga, District Balodabazar. The complainant, Ashwant Das, alleged that the applicants were publicly distributing books with offensive passages on pages 4, 8, and 46, which he deemed insulting to the Kabir Panthi faith.
Key Facts
- The complainant, PW-1 Ashwant Das, took possession of one such book during the distribution and lodged a written complaint (Ex. P-1) on the same day.
- An FIR (Ex. P-2) was registered on 14.02.2014 against the applicants under Section 295(A) IPC.
- A white-coloured book bearing the photograph of Kabir Ji on its cover was seized during investigation and marked as Ex. P-3.
- A spot map of the occurrence was prepared and marked as Ex. P-5.
- The prosecution relied on testimonies of three eyewitnesses: PW-1 Ashwant Das, PW-2 Bhanu Singh, and PW-3 Kheduram Nishad.
- The Investigating Officer, PW-5 Prabhat Sahu, confirmed that prior sanction under Section 196 CrPC was obtained from the Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Law and Legislative Affairs, dated 15.12.2014.
- The sanction order was filed along with the charge-sheet (No. 435/2014) and a copy was supplied to the accused prior to trial.
- No material contradiction or omission was established in cross-examination of prosecution witnesses.
Procedural History
- 14.02.2014: Incident of alleged distribution of objectionable books at Damakheda.
- 14.02.2014: Written complaint (Ex. P-1) lodged by Ashwant Das; FIR (Ex. P-2) registered.
- 15.12.2014: Prior sanction under Section 196 CrPC granted by Government of Chhattisgarh.
- 2014: Charge-sheet filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Simga.
- 27.01.2016: Trial Court (JMFC, Simga) convicted all applicants under Section 295(A) IPC and sentenced them to six months’ simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500 each.
- 07.07.2016: Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatapara, affirmed conviction but modified sentence to one week’s simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 3,000 each, in default of payment, to undergo one week’s simple imprisonment.
- 09.04.2026: Criminal Revision No. 992 of 2016 decided by Chhattisgarh High Court.
Relief Sought
The applicants sought quashing of the conviction and sentence, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove: (i) that they distributed the books, (ii) that the seized book was in their possession, (iii) that the sanction under Section 196 CrPC was properly proved, and (iv) that the witnesses reliably identified them.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the prosecution successfully established the offence under Section 295(A) IPC by proving malicious intent to outrage religious feelings, and whether the mandatory requirement of prior sanction under Section 196 of the CrPC was duly complied with and proved on record.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
Learned counsel contended that the prosecution failed to prove the applicants’ direct involvement in distributing the books. He argued that the seized book (Ex. P-3) was not recovered from the applicants’ possession and that independent witnesses failed to identify them. He further submitted that the sanction order dated 15.12.2014 was neither exhibited nor formally proved in court, rendering the prosecution invalid. He relied on the principle that absence of direct evidence linking the accused to the act of distribution warrants acquittal.
For the Respondent/State
The State counsel argued that the testimony of PW-1 Ashwant Das was credible and unimpeached in cross-examination. He emphasized that PW-2 and PW-3 corroborated the distribution of the books, and PW-5, the Investigating Officer, testified that the sanction order was obtained, filed with the charge-sheet, and supplied to the accused. He submitted that the trial and appellate courts had correctly appreciated the evidence and that the sanction requirement under Section 196 CrPC was satisfied as the order was on record at the time of cognizance.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a meticulous review of the evidence and found no ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts. It held that the testimony of PW-1 Ashwant Das, who personally witnessed the distribution and retained the book, was consistent and unshaken in cross-examination. The corroborative evidence of PW-2 and PW-3, who also observed the distribution, strengthened the prosecution’s case.
"The act of distributing such material, along with its contents, shows deliberate and malicious intention to hurt the religious feelings of the said community, thereby attracting the offence under Section 295(A) of IPC."
The Court further examined the issue of sanction under Section 196 CrPC and found that the Investigating Officer’s testimony, which was not challenged in cross-examination, established that the sanction order dated 15.12.2014 was obtained from the Government and filed with the charge-sheet. The Court held that the filing of the sanction order with the charge-sheet and its supply to the accused satisfied the procedural requirement under Section 196 CrPC, even if the original document was not formally exhibited. The Court emphasized that the accused had ample opportunity to challenge the sanction and chose not to do so.
The Court reiterated that Section 295(A) IPC requires proof of deliberate and malicious intent to outrage religious feelings, which was established by the nature of the content (pages 4, 8, and 46), the public setting of distribution, and the complainant’s immediate reaction. The Court declined to interfere with the sentence modification, noting the appellate court’s leniency was justified.
The Verdict
The criminal revision was dismissed. The conviction of all six applicants under Section 295(A) IPC was upheld. The sentence of one week’s simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 3,000 each, in default of payment to undergo one week’s simple imprisonment, as modified by the appellate court, remained in force. No costs were awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Prior Sanction Under Section 196 CrPC Is Proved by Filing, Not Necessarily Exhibition
- Practitioners must now treat the filing of the sanction order with the charge-sheet and its supply to the accused as sufficient compliance under Section 196 CrPC, absent a specific challenge.
- Failure to formally exhibit the sanction order does not invalidate prosecution if the Investigating Officer’s testimony on its procurement and filing is unchallenged.
Malicious Intent Can Be Inferred from Content and Context of Distribution
- The nature of the material (derogatory passages targeting a specific religious group) combined with public distribution during a religious gathering suffices to establish malice under Section 295(A) IPC.
- Prosecution need not prove direct physical possession of the material by the accused; eyewitness testimony of distribution is sufficient.
Concurrent Findings of Fact Are Entitled to High Deference
- Appellate and revisional courts will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there is a clear error or perversity.
- This judgment reinforces that appellate courts’ leniency in sentencing, even if modified, will not be disturbed unless manifestly unjust.
