Waqf-Leased Land, Unproven Shrine: P&H HC Upholds Acquittal In Balmiki Community Assault Case

The appellant challenged the acquittal of respondents 2–19 in a prosecution arising from an alleged 11 February 2012 attack at land said to be occupied by the Balmiki community, where a temple and Nishan Sahib were allegedly present.

The prosecution alleged that the respondents, seeking to take possession of the land, attacked community members and damaged the place of worship.

The trial court acquitted the accused.

In the appeal, the High Court considered, among other matters, the complainant’s admission that the land belonged to the Punjab Waqf Board and had been leased to a firm of which Kulwinder Singh was a partner, as well as the defence evidence concerning the lease and the absence of a temple in the land records.

Sections 146, 148 and 149 IPC address rioting and liability for offences committed by members of an unlawful assembly; the prosecution must establish the assembly’s common object or the members’ knowledge that the offence was likely to be committed in furtherance of that object.

Section 295 IPC requires proof that a place of worship or sacred object was destroyed, damaged or defiled with the requisite intention or knowledge.

Section 307 IPC requires an act done with the intention or knowledge that, if death resulted, the act would amount to murder.

The Court also considered the charge under Section 3 of the SC/ST Act and whether the alleged conduct supported liability in the circumstances.

Where an eyewitness is neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable, corroboration in material particulars is required, as discussed with reference to Anoop Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 2025 (Law Finder) SC 1770.

Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for proof beyond reasonable doubt; the Court relied on Raj Kumar Singh @ Raju @ Batya v. State of Rajasthan, (2013) 5 SCC 722.

The Court found material doubt in the prosecution account: the complainant’s evidence about the land’s possession conflicted with her admission that it was leased to a firm associated with Kulwinder Singh, while defence evidence supported the lease and the absence of a temple in the land records.

The alleged temple and Nishan Sahib were not substantiated by photographs, documents or other supporting witnesses, undermining the Section 295 charge.

The Court also noted that several witnesses turned hostile, some injured persons were not examined, and the evidence did not reliably establish the alleged common object or the respondents’ participation in the offences.

The single grievous injury relied on for Section 307 was not shown to be life-threatening or inflicted with the requisite intention or knowledge.

In the Court’s assessment, these doubts did not justify overturning the acquittal.

It dismissed the appeal and affirmed the acquittal dated 26 September 2022.