Delhi Court: Slogans Not Communal Offence Under IPC 153A, 505

• A Delhi court acquitted 12 individuals in a 2020 Delhi riots case concerning Mursaleen's death.
• The court ruled that religious slogans like 'Jai Siya Ram' and 'Har Har Mahadev' alone are insufficient to establish communal offences under Sections 153A or 505 IPC.
• Such slogans must be accompanied by specific acts that satisfy the ingredients of the relevant penal provisions to be considered an offence.
• The prosecution's case for murder and other charges failed due to a hostile eyewitness and lack of specific evidence linking accused individuals to overt acts.
• The judgment, delivered by Additional Sessions Judge Parveen Singh on August 25, 2026, sets a significant legal precedent for communal offence prosecutions.

The court clarified that such slogans could not be considered proof of communal offences unless directly accompanied by specific actions that satisfy the elements of the relevant penal provisions.

A Delhi court recently acquitted twelve individuals in a case stemming from the 2020 Delhi riots, which involved the death of one Mursaleen. The significant ruling, delivered by Additional Sessions Judge Parveen Singh of the North East District, Karkardooma Courts, on August 25, 2026, established that merely uttering religious slogans such as "Jai Siya Ram" and "Har Har Mahadev" is not, by itself, sufficient to constitute communal offences under Sections 153A or 505 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The court underscored that these slogans could not be treated as conclusive evidence of the charged communal offences unless they were accompanied by specific actions that fulfilled the requirements of the pertinent penal provisions. While all twelve accused were cleared of the primary charges, one individual, Himanshu Thakur, received a separate conviction under Section 411 IPC.

The prosecution had contended that the accused were part of a large, armed mob during the riots, chanting "Jai Siya Ram" and "Har Har Mahadev" with the intent to incite communal unrest. This argument was central to their attempt to establish charges under Section 153A IPC, which deals with promoting enmity between different groups, and Section 505 IPC, concerning statements conducing to public mischief, particularly when read with Section 149 IPC, which addresses common object of an unlawful assembly.

However, the court explicitly rejected the notion that the slogans, in isolation, were adequate proof. It held that merely raising these slogans does not constitute an offence unless such utterances are directly linked to overt acts that violate either Section 153A IPC or Section 505 IPC. The court had previously noted that no specific communal act had been proven against the alleged unlawful assembly, thereby concluding that the mere presence of a crowd chanting these slogans could not establish the necessary ingredients for the communal offence charges.

Beyond the communal offence charges, the prosecution's case also faltered on proving the alleged murder of Mursaleen. The Special Public Prosecutor conceded that their principal eyewitness, Divesh Rajpoot (PW7), had turned hostile, leaving no other evidence to establish the circumstances of Mursaleen's death. Consequently, the prosecution admitted a lack of evidence to sustain charges under Section 302 (murder) read with Section 149 IPC, or Sections 395/396 (dacoity with murder) read with Section 149 IPC.

The court independently corroborated these findings, noting that none of the witnesses presented as eyewitnesses to the murder supported the prosecution's narrative or claimed to have seen Mursaleen being killed by the riotous mob at Johripur Pulia. Furthermore, there was no evidence presented to substantiate charges of dacoity, offences under Section 432 IPC, mischief by fire under Section 435 IPC, or destruction of evidence under Section 201 IPC. The court also highlighted the absence of specific evidence linking individual accused to particular weapons or overt acts, leading to the failure to prove the ingredients of Section 144 IPC, which pertains to unlawful assembly.

This judgment sets a crucial precedent regarding the interpretation and application of communal offence provisions in India, particularly Sections 153A and 505 IPC. It clarifies that the mere utterance of religious slogans, even those commonly associated with specific communities, does not automatically equate to incitement or public mischief without concrete, accompanying actions that satisfy the legal definitions of these offences. This ruling reinforces the high bar for proving communal charges, emphasizing the necessity for specific evidence of overt acts rather than relying solely on general mob behavior or chanted phrases.

The Karkardooma Courts communal offence ruling underscores the judiciary's demand for robust evidentiary standards in cases involving religious incitement and public mischief. It serves as a significant legal precedent, particularly in the context of the 2020 Delhi Riots acquittals, by distinguishing between expressions of religious devotion or identity and actual criminal conduct intended to provoke communal disharmony. This approach ensures that charges of religious incitement are not levied without clear proof of intent and action, thereby safeguarding individual liberties while upholding public order.

This judgment provides a crucial precedent for defence counsel in India, clarifying that mere utterance of religious slogans like 'Jai Siya Ram' or 'Har Har Mahadev' is insufficient, by itself, to establish communal offences under Sections 153A or 505 IPC. Lawyers should note the court's emphasis on requiring accompanying overt acts that satisfy the ingredients of these penal provisions, and the need for specific evidence linking individuals to unlawful assembly and overt acts, rather than relying solely on general mob behaviour.

Source: Reporting based on Lawbeat's original coverage.