The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the acquittal of four persons accused in connection with the 2017 violence at the Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam (UHBVN) office in Kaithal following the conviction of Dera Sacha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh. Dismissing the State of Haryana's appeal, the Division Bench held that the prosecution failed to establish the accused's involvement beyond reasonable doubt and that serious shortcomings in the investigation weakened the case.
Background of the Case
The case arose from an FIR registered on August 25, 2017, alleging that a group of people vandalised and set fire to the UHBVN office at Kalayat while raising slogans after the conviction of Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh. The accused were charged under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including sedition, mischief by fire, trespass and damage to public property, along with provisions of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.
After a full trial, the Sessions Court in Kaithal acquitted all the accused in September 2019, holding that the prosecution had failed to prove its case. The State challenged that acquittal before the High Court.
Court's Observations
A Bench of Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur found no reason to interfere with the trial court's findings.
The Court noted that none of the prosecution witnesses named the accused in the FIR, and several witnesses failed to identify them during the investigation. It also pointed out that no Test Identification Parade was conducted, despite the witnesses having no prior acquaintance with the accused.
The Bench observed:
"The burden lay squarely upon the prosecution to establish the guilt of the respondents beyond all reasonable doubt but it has failed to cross over from a broad suspicion of the accused 'may have been' involved to the legal requirement of an accused 'must be involved' in the offences."
The Court further found inconsistencies in witness statements, unexplained delays in arrests, doubtful recoveries of alleged weapons, and contradictions regarding the role attributed to the accused. It also noted that the forensic report did not detect traces of petrol or other inflammable substances on the burnt material, despite allegations that petrol bottles had been used to set the office on fire.
Sedition Charge Not Made Out
The High Court also examined the charge under Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code (sedition).
The Bench observed:
"A violent protest may amount to rioting but such action of violence would not be perceived as an act of bringing in hatred or contempt against Government."
It added that merely raising slogans against the government in a democracy could not automatically amount to sedition.
The Court stated:
"A frustration or dis-satisfaction or even outrage is not a disaffection or hatred."
It also found that the prosecution had failed to establish the legal ingredients required to sustain the sedition charge.
Decision
Finding that the trial court had relied on substantial deficiencies in the prosecution's evidence rather than minor inconsistencies, the High Court held that the acquittal represented a reasonable and legally sustainable view.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the State of Haryana's appeal and affirmed the acquittal of all the respondents.
Case Details
Case Title: State of Haryana v. Dharampal and Others
Case Number: CRM-A-161-2021 and CRA-AD-276-2026 (O&M)
Judge: Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur
Decision Date: July 2, 2026
