Introduction:

The Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad, in a noteworthy judgment, examined the contours of criminal liability under the Maharashtra Prevention and Eradication of Human Sacrifice and Other Inhuman, Evil and Aghori Practices and Black Magic Act, 2013. The case arose from a criminal application filed by Gajanan Kashiram Shekokar (Applicant) against the State of Maharashtra and Another (Respondents), seeking quashing of an FIR registered under Section 3(2) of the 2013 Act.

The allegations against the applicant were unusual yet serious in nature. It was alleged that he had sprinkled white mustard seeds in front of the complainant’s house, which was interpreted as an act of black magic or an inhuman practice intended to harm or intimidate. Based on this allegation, an FIR was lodged invoking stringent provisions of the 2013 Act, which criminalizes practices involving human sacrifice, black magic, and other exploitative rituals.

However, the applicant challenged the FIR, arguing that the alleged act, even if taken at face value, did not fall within the ambit of the Act. He contended that there was no evidence of any malicious intent, coercion, or exploitation, which are essential ingredients of the offence. The case thus presented a critical question: whether a seemingly innocuous act, devoid of proven intent, could be criminalized under a stringent statute aimed at eradicating harmful and exploitative practices.

Arguments by the Applicant:

The applicant’s counsel mounted a comprehensive challenge to the FIR, attacking both the factual foundation and the legal sustainability of the allegations.

At the outset, it was argued that the FIR and the charge-sheet failed to establish the identity of the applicant as the person who allegedly committed the act. The prosecution relied on CCTV footage purportedly showing a motorcycle passing by the complainant’s house. However, the rider was wearing a helmet, and no clear identification was possible. The only link drawn was that the motorcycle was registered in the applicant’s name.

The applicant contended that mere ownership of a vehicle cannot establish the identity of the person riding it at a given time. Furthermore, the prosecution had failed to record the statement of the neighbour, Ramrao Kakde, in whose premises the CCTV camera was installed. This omission, it was argued, rendered the evidence unreliable and incomplete.

On the substantive legal issue, the applicant argued that the alleged act of sprinkling white mustard seeds does not, by itself, constitute an offence under Section 3(2) of the 2013 Act. The Act targets specific practices involving human sacrifice, black magic, and other exploitative rituals carried out with the intent to deceive, harm, or exploit individuals.

It was emphasized that the FIR did not attribute any ill motive or intention to the applicant. There were no allegations that the act was intended to cause fear, induce belief in supernatural powers, or extract any form of gain from the complainant. In the absence of such intent, the act could not be brought within the purview of the Act.

The applicant also highlighted that there was an ongoing matrimonial dispute between his family and that of the complainant. His son’s marital dispute had recently been settled through a compromise in Family Court proceedings. The timing of the FIR, which was lodged shortly before the settlement, suggested that it was a counter-blast and possibly a tool for exerting pressure in the dispute.

It was further argued that criminal law should not be misused to settle personal scores, and the continuation of such proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

Arguments by the Respondents:

The State, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor, defended the registration of the FIR and the invocation of the provisions of the 2013 Act.

It was contended that the act of sprinkling white mustard seeds in front of the complainant’s house was not an ordinary act but one that could be associated with superstitious practices intended to cause fear or psychological harm. The State argued that such acts must be viewed in the broader context of societal practices and beliefs, where certain rituals are used to intimidate or influence individuals.

The prosecution relied on the CCTV footage to establish the presence of a motorcycle linked to the applicant in the vicinity of the complainant’s house during the relevant time. It was submitted that this circumstantial evidence was sufficient to proceed with the investigation and trial.

The respondent no. 2 (complainant) further alleged that a similar incident had occurred at another location, suggesting a pattern of conduct. This, according to the respondents, indicated that the act was not isolated and could be part of a deliberate attempt to engage in prohibited practices.

The respondents argued that at the stage of quashing, the Court should not conduct a detailed examination of evidence and should allow the trial to proceed if a prima facie case is made out.

Court’s Judgment:

After carefully considering the submissions and examining the material on record, the High Court allowed the application and quashed the FIR, holding that the allegations did not constitute an offence under the 2013 Act.

1. Lack of Evidence Establishing Identity

The Court first addressed the issue of identification of the accused.

It noted that the prosecution’s case rested on CCTV footage showing a motorcycle passing by the complainant’s house. However, the rider was wearing a helmet, and there was no direct evidence linking the applicant to the act.

Significantly, the Court observed that the statement of the neighbour, who was the custodian of the CCTV footage, had not been recorded. This omission undermined the credibility of the evidence.

The Court held that mere registration of the motorcycle in the applicant’s name was insufficient to establish his identity as the perpetrator.

2. Interpretation of Section 3(2) of the 2013 Act

The Court then examined the scope of Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Black Magic Act.

It noted that the provision criminalizes acts of human sacrifice and other inhuman, evil, and aghori practices, including their promotion or propagation. However, the Court emphasized that such acts must involve an element of intention to exploit, harm, or induce belief in supernatural powers.

The Court referred to the definition and the Schedule of the Act, which enumerate various prohibited practices. While the definition is broad, it is not meant to cover every act that may be perceived as unusual or superstitious.

3. Absence of Ill Motive or Intention

A crucial finding of the Court was that the FIR did not disclose any ill motive or intention behind the alleged act.

The Court observed that:

“Mere allegation that the accused sprinkled white mustard in the premises of the informant, without explaining the intention behind such act, is insufficient to bring it within the purview of the Act.”

The Court held that intention is a key ingredient of the offence, and in its absence, the act cannot be criminalized under the statute.

4. Context of Matrimonial Dispute

The Court also took note of the background of the case, particularly the ongoing matrimonial dispute between the families of the applicant and the complainant.

It observed that the timing of the FIR, which was lodged just before the settlement of the matrimonial dispute, raised doubts about its genuineness.

The Court remarked that the possibility of the FIR being used as a tool for settlement could not be ruled out.

5. No Prima Facie Offence Made Out

Even assuming that the allegations in the FIR were true, the Court held that they did not constitute an offence under Section 3(2) of the Act.

The Court emphasized that criminal law should not be invoked in the absence of essential ingredients of the offence. Allowing such proceedings to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

6. Exercise of Inherent Powers

Invoking its inherent powers, the Court quashed the FIR to prevent misuse of legal provisions and to secure the ends of justice.