Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India considered an appeal by special leave against the dismissal of a criminal complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellant, a Saivite Hindu, had filed a complaint before the Additional First-Class Magistrate, Tiruchirappalli, alleging that the first respondent, a leader of Dravida Kazakam, along with two others, publicly broke a mud image of God Ganesa at a Town Hall Maidan on May 27, 1953, with the intention of insulting the religious feelings of the Saivite section of the Hindu community. The complaint alleged offences under Sections 295 and 295A of the Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate directed a police inquiry under Section 202 CrPC. Upon receiving a police report that the occurrence had taken place but raised a point of law, the Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 203 CrPC, holding that a mud figure of Ganesa was not an object held sacred or worshipped by any class of persons, and that any offence under Section 295A required government sanction which was absent. The Sessions Judge and the High Court in revision upheld the dismissal, reasoning that the broken image was private property of the accused and not an object held sacred, and that idol breaking by a non-believer could not reasonably be regarded by a believer as an insult to his religion. The High Court further limited the phrase 'any object held sacred by any class of persons' to idols in temples or those taken out in processions on festival occasions. The appellant then obtained special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts had clearly erred in interpreting Section 295 IPC. The words 'any object held sacred by any class of persons' are of general import and cannot be limited to idols in temples or idols carried on festival occasions. Not merely idols or sacred books, but any other object which is regarded as sacred by any class of persons, whether actually worshipped or not, falls within the description. The Court observed that whether an object is held sacred and whether the accused had the requisite intention or knowledge are questions of fact to be determined on evidence. However, because the complaint had stood dismissed for a long time, the Court declined to direct further enquiry. The Court emphasized that courts must be circumspect in such matters and pay due regard to the religious susceptibilities of different classes of persons with different beliefs, whether the court shares those beliefs or not or whether those beliefs appear rational. The appeal was thus allowed on the legal interpretation but without any operative direction for further enquiry, leaving the dismissal undisturbed in practice.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Insult to Religion - Scope of 'Any Object Held Sacred by Any Class of Persons' - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 295 - Complainant alleged respondents publicly broke mud image of God Ganesa with intent to insult religious feelings of Saivite Hindus; lower courts dismissed complaint holding mud image not object held sacred, restricting phrase to temple idols and processional idols. Supreme Court held phrase is of general import and includes any object regarded as sacred by any class whether actually worshipped or not; lower courts erred in interpretation. Held that petition of complaint disclosed prima facie offence under Section 295 IPC and dismissal was based on erroneous legal premise (Paras 1-8). B) Criminal Procedure - Dismissal of Complaint - Further Enquiry and Religious Susceptibilities - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Sections 202, 203 - Though lower courts erred, Supreme Court declined to direct further enquiry because complaint had stood dismissed for a long period; emphasized courts must be circumspect and pay due regard to religious susceptibilities of different classes with different beliefs, irrespective of rationality or shared belief; Held no further enquiry directed despite error (Paras 9-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petition of complaint disclosed a prima facie offence under Section 295 of the Indian Penal Code; whether a mud image of God Ganesa, not installed in a temple, can be considered 'any object held sacred by any class of persons' under Section 295 IPC; whether lower courts erred in restricting the meaning of 'object held sacred' to temple idols or idols in processions.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court held that the lower courts were clearly in error in interpreting Section 295 IPC by restricting the phrase 'any object held sacred by any class of persons' to idols in temples or idols carried in processions on festival occasions. The court ruled that the phrase is of general import and includes any object regarded as sacred by any class of persons, whether actually worshipped or not. However, since the complaint had stood dismissed for a long time, the court declined to direct further enquiry into the matter. The court also emphasised that courts must be circumspect in such matters and pay due regard to the religious susceptibilities of different classes of persons with different beliefs, whether they shared those beliefs or not or whether those beliefs appeared rational.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Section 295 IPC must be interpreted broadly
- 'any object held sacred by any class of persons' includes any object regarded as sacred by any class
- not limited to temple idols
- question of sacredness and intention is factual
- courts must respect religious susceptibilities
