Legal provisions regarding Uttering words etc., with deliberate intent to wound religious feeling under section 298 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Uttering words etc., with deliberate intent to wound religious feeling:
“Whoever, with the deliberate intention of wounding the religious feelings of any person, utters any word or makes any sound in the hearing of that person or makes any gesture in the sight of that person or places, any object in the sight of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.”
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Section 298 requires that it must be shown:
i) That the accused uttered any word or made any sound or gesture or placed any object;
ii) That he did so intentionally;
iii) That intention was deliberate;
Image Source: 185.26.182.219
ADVERTISEMENTS:
iv) That the deliberate intention was to wound the religious feelings of some person.
To hold the petitioners guilty of an offence under Section 298, IPC the prosecution must establish affirmatively that the act was done with the deliberate intention of wounding religious feelings of other persons. It is true that intention has to be gathered from the conduct of the parties and the surrounding circumstances.
It may be that the petitioners knew that by their action they would invade the civil rights of other persons and might possibly hurt their feelings. But a mere knowledge of the likelihood that the feelings of other person might be hurt would not suffice to bring their act within the mischief of Section 298 IPC. The section requires that the offender should have a deliberate intention of wounding the religious feeling of a section of the public.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Section 298 allows fair latitude to religious discussion but at the same time prevents the professors of any religion from offering, under the pretext of such discussion, intentional insults to what is held sacred by others. No person is justified in wounding with deliberate intention the religious feelings of his neighbours by words, gestures or exhibitions.
A warm expression dropped in the heat of controversy, or an argument urged by any person, not for the purpose of insulting and annoying the professors of a different creed, but in good faith for vindicating his own, does not fall under Section 298.
In Shaik Amjal v. R [(1942) 21 Pat 315], where the accused killed a cow on the occasion of Bakr-i-ld at dawn in a semiprivate place and the killing was seen by some Hindus walking along the village pathway fifty feet away, it was held that no offence under Section 298 was committed.
Section 298 does not apply to a written article. In Shalibhadra Shah v. State [1981 CrLJ 113 (Guj)], the Editor of a weekly wrote a scurrilous and defamatory article in his weekly ‘Asspass’ under caption “Why Acharya Rajneesh leaves Pune” and was thus prosecuted by petitioners who were followers of the said Acharya, it was held that as Section 298, IPC, relates to oral words uttered in presence of a person with the intention of wounding his religious feelings, it has no application to his religious feeling, it has no application to a written article which was published in a weekly but, the offence under Section 298 which was non-cognizable made cognizable by the State Government by a notification in the Official Gazette and summons should issue in the first instance. It is bailable as well as compoundable, and is triable by any Magistrate.