Scribd
Upload
8 views2 pages

Document

The Supreme Court case addresses the appeal by the State of Ramil Wadu against the High Court's acquittal of Rahul Raghuvanshi, arguing that the acquittal was unjust given the evidence of incitement to violence. The document discusses the maintainability of the appeal, the justification of the High Court's decision, the limitation period for prosecution, the necessity of sanction for prosecuting a sitting MLA, and the evidentiary value of the Jagamohan Commission's findings. The appellant requests the Supreme Court to restore the Sessions Court's conviction and reinforce accountability for hate speech by public leaders.

Uploaded by

pramodhm744
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
8 views2 pages

Document

The Supreme Court case addresses the appeal by the State of Ramil Wadu against the High Court's acquittal of Rahul Raghuvanshi, arguing that the acquittal was unjust given the evidence of incitement to violence. The document discusses the maintainability of the appeal, the justification of the High Court's decision, the limitation period for prosecution, the necessity of sanction for prosecuting a sitting MLA, and the evidentiary value of the Jagamohan Commission's findings. The appellant requests the Supreme Court to restore the Sessions Court's conviction and reinforce accountability for hate speech by public leaders.

Uploaded by

pramodhm744
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Case: State of Ramil Wadu

v. Rahul Raghuvanshi Advocate for Appellant: Pramod H M

Issue 1: Whether the appeal is maintainable before the Supreme Court?


My Lords, The present appeal is perfectly maintainable under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India, which empowers this Hon’ble Court to grant Special Leave
to Appeal in cases where grave injustice has occurred.
The acquittal by the High Court despite clear evidence of incitement to violence
qualifies for judicial scrutiny.
Relevant Authority:
Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1956 SC 415 – this Hon’ble Court held that
it can interfere in criminal matters to prevent miscarriage of justice.
State of Maharashtra v. Jagmohan Singh, (2004) 7 SCC 659 – appeal can lie even
after acquittal if perversity is shown.

Issue 2: Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the conviction of
the Sessions Court?
My Lords, The High Court erred in setting aside the conviction. The speech made
by the Respondent on 16.02.2019 at Tradulai Swamy Stadium, where he termed
the protestors “wild creatures” and asked for a “fitting reply”, directly led to riots,
injuries, and loss of life.
This act falls squarely under Section 153A of IPC, which punishes promoting
enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, language, etc.
Case Law:
Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of A.P., (1997) 7 SCC 431 – even indirect incitement
causing disharmony is punishable under Section 153A IPC.
K.A. Abbas v. Union of India, AIR 1971 SC 481 – reasonable restrictions under
Article 19(2) apply when speech threatens public order.
Hence, the Sessions Court rightly convicted the Respondent. The High Court
failed to appreciate the causality between the speech and resultant violence.

Issue 3: Whether the case is barred by limitation under CrPC or the Limitation
Act?
Your Lordships, The prosecution is well within the limitation period. Under
Section 468(2)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, for offences punishable
with imprisonment up to 3 years, limitation is 3 years. The FIR was filed
immediately on 17.02.2019 after the incident.
Even if delay had occurred, Section 473 CrPC allows the Court to condone such
delay in the interest of justice.
Case Law:
State of Punjab v. Sarwan Singh, (1981) 3 SCC 34 – limitation should not defeat
justice in criminal matters.
Vanka Radhamanohari v. Vanka Venkata Reddy, (1993) Supp 3 SCC 4 – delay
can be condoned if offence affects society at large.

Issue 4: Whether sanction was required under Section 197 CrPC for prosecuting
a sitting MLA?
Respectfully submitted, My Lords, Section 197 CrPC applies only when the
alleged offence is committed while acting in official capacity. The speech made
by Respondent was at a political rally, not in discharge of any official duty as an
MLA. Therefore, no sanction is needed.
Case Law:
Prakash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab, (2007) 1 SCC 1 – no protection under
Section 197 CrPC for acts done in personal or political capacity.
Harihar Prasad v. State of Bihar, (1972) 3 SCC 89 – the test is whether the act is
directly connected to official duty. Here, it was not.

Issue 5: Whether the Government is bound by the findings of the Jagamohan


Commission?
My Lords, Although the report of the Justice Jagamohan Commission,
constituted under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, is not legally binding,
it has evidentiary and persuasive value. The findings establish that the
Respondent’s speech was the proximate cause of the law and order breakdown.
Case Law:
Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice Tendolkar, AIR 1958 SC 538 – such reports can
be used to support factual conclusions.
R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay, 1984 SCR (2) 495 – findings of a commission can
aid judicial interpretation.
Thus, while not binding, the report must be given due weight.
PRAYER
My Lords, I humbly request this Hon’ble Court to:
Cancel the High Court’s order dated 16th July 2021,
Restore the Sessions Court’s conviction order dated 18th November 2019, and
Hold that a public leader like the Respondent cannot make hate speeches and
avoid responsibility.
This will protect law and order, and send a clear message that no one is above the
law.
I am most grateful, My Lords.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy