Chandigarh, July 15 -- The Punjab and Haryana high court has held that sloganeering against the government or wings of governance, in an elected democracy, would not be sufficient to slap charges of sedition against its citizens. "Frustration, dissatisfaction, or even outrage does not amount to disaffection or hatred. The court is hence required to ensure that when the charge is grave and the punishment is harsh, the existence of its ingredients must be strictly established. The evidence on record is merely suggestive of slogans against the government, which is only a means of expressing dissent and not hatred, contempt, or disaffection," the bench of justice Vinod S Bhardwaj and justice Sukhvinder Kaur said while upholding the acquittal order in a case against four Kaithal residents. The first information report (FIR) was registered on August 25, 2017, under Sections 124-A (sedition), 188 (disobedience of a lawful order), 436 (mischief by fire or explosive substances), 450 (tress-pass), 120-B (criminal conspiracy) and 34 (joint liability) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with the provisions of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act at Kalayat police station in Kaithal. On September 23, 2019, the sessions judge, Kaithal had acquitted one Dharampal and others. Sandeep Bharat, sub-divisional officer of Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam (UHBVN), Kalayat, stated in a complaint that approximately 14-15 people marched toward the office in the afternoon, raising slogans. He alleged that the people were carrying lathis, dandas, gandasis, and bottles containing petrol. The assailants entered the office premises and caused extensive damage to the office property, including computers, printers, and furniture, besides setting the premises on fire. The complaint alleged that the accused persons were raising slogans in support of the head of Dera Sacha Sauda, Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh, and had indulged in acts of vandalism and arson in protest against the judgment by the Panchkula CBI court convicting the Dera head in two rape cases in that month. The state was in appeal against the judgment delivered in 2021. "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 the government," the court observed. The high court also upheld trial court order on other counts observing that the HC found "no illegality, perversity, impropriety, misreading of evidence or miscarriage of justice in the judgment of acquittal" that warranted interference. The trial court has not acquitted the respondents merely on account of minor discrepancies but the acquittal is founded upon substantial contradictions, material omissions, doubtful recoveries, lack of reliable identification, inconsistent investigation, absence of forensic corroboration and failure of the prosecution to establish the statutory ingredients of several offences alleged against the respondents. "In the present case, the state has been unable to demonstrate that any material evidence has been ignored by the trial court, or that any finding recorded therein is either perverse or contrary to the record. The conclusions recorded by the trial court are fully borne out by the material available on record and represent a possible, reasonable, and legally sustainable view," it said. The court opined that 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. "Suspicion and suppositions are probabilities and not proof," it added....