In a case under section 153 of the IPC which Thackeray didn’t conceal while threatening non-Marathis living in Maharashtra.
NEW DELHI: If ever tried in a court of law, Maharashtra Navnirman Sena chief Raj Thackeray, now on bail in a case of intentionally promoting enmity between different groups on the ground of place of birth, residence and language, would find it tough to defend his utterances, for they also demonstrate his motive behind them.
In a case under section 153 of the IPC, the most important ingredient of the offence is intention or motive, which Thackeray didn’t conceal while threatening non-Marathis living in Maharashtra.
His speeches and statements made at a press conference restricted to Marathi publications and electronic channels worked as a vital pill for his brigade, encouraging it to virtually bulldoze innocent people from various states who eke out a livelihood in Maharashtra.
While dealing with a case in which an author from Maharashtra had been charged with the same offence for writing a book that offended a section of people, the Supreme Court emphasised the importance of the motive of the author for penning something that’s found objectionable by the investigators.
Since the author had none, a bench of justices KG Balakrishnan, Lokeshwar Singh Panta and DK Jain held that section 153 of the IPC covers a case where a person by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities or acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony or is likely to disturb public tranquility.
“The gist of the offence is the intention to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of people. The intention to cause disorder or incite the people to violence is the sine qua non (must) of the offence under section 153A of the IPC and the prosecution has to prove prima facie the existence of mens rea (motive) on the part of the accused,” the court said. The intention has to be judged primarily by the language used and the circumstances in which they were made. The allegation under section 153 IPC must be read as a whole.
“One cannot rely on strongly-worded and isolated passages for proving the charge, nor indeed can one take a sentence here and a sentence there and connect them by a meticulous process of inferential reasoning,” the court said.
Legal experts say prima facie all the essential ingredients for proving the charge against Raj do exist and only careful pleadings could bring him to book.
b_rakesh@dnaindia.net
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}