Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Reverse Acquittal in Dera Violence Case; Holds Sedition Cannot Be Invoked for Mere Anti-Government Slogans Without Incitement Against the State
Case Name: State of Haryana v. Dharampal and Others
Date of Judgment: 02 July 2026
Citation: CRA-AD-276-2026
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj and Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Sukhvinder Kaur.
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that mere sloganeering against the Government, even during a violent protest, does not by itself constitute the offence of sedition under Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code unless the prosecution establishes hatred, contempt or disaffection against the State in the legal sense. The Court observed that in a constitutional democracy, expressions of frustration, dissent or outrage against the Government cannot automatically be equated with sedition. The Court further held that an appellate court should not interfere with an order of acquittal unless the findings of the trial court are shown to be perverse or contrary to the evidence on record. Where the prosecution fails to establish the identity of the accused through reliable evidence, prove recoveries, produce forensic corroboration or satisfy the statutory ingredients of the offences alleged, the acquittal deserves to be affirmed.
Summary: The appeal was filed by the State of Haryana challenging the acquittal of the respondents who had been prosecuted for offences under Sections 124-A, 188, 427, 436, 450 and 120-B read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, arising out of violence allegedly committed after the conviction of Dera Sacha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh in 2017. According to the prosecution, a mob attacked the office of the Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, damaged public property, set the office on fire and raised slogans in support of the Dera chief. The High Court found that the prosecution failed to establish the identity and participation of the accused through trustworthy evidence. None of the eyewitnesses named all the accused in the earliest version, no Test Identification Parade was conducted despite the witnesses being strangers to the accused, several witnesses materially improved their statements during trial, and the alleged recoveries were unsupported by reliable evidence. The Court further noticed inconsistencies regarding the arrest of the accused, absence of forensic evidence detecting petrol or other inflammable substances despite allegations of arson, and unexplained investigative lapses which substantially weakened the prosecution case. It also found that the prosecution failed to establish the ingredients of Section 188 IPC because the order under Section 144 Cr.P.C. relied upon had been promulgated long after the occurrence. Rejecting the sedition charge, the Court held that raising anti-government slogans or expressing dissent against governmental actions, without evidence of inciting hatred, contempt or disaffection against the State, cannot attract Section 124-A IPC. Since the trial court’s conclusions were based on a plausible appreciation of evidence and the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, no ground existed for appellate interference with the acquittal.
Decision: The appeal was dismissed. The Punjab and Haryana High Court affirmed the judgment of acquittal, holding that the prosecution failed to establish the identity and involvement of the accused, prove the essential ingredients of the offences alleged, or demonstrate any perversity in the findings recorded by the Trial Court warranting interference in an appeal against acquittal.