Facts of the Case (based on Indian Express Report of March 16, 2021)

Who called for Beheading and announced Bounty of Rs. 11 lakh?

Ameerul Hasan Zaidi, former District Bar Association President.

Against Whom Bounty announced?

Waseem Rizvi, former Chairman of UP Shia Waqf Board.

Reason?

Wasim Rizvi filed a petition in the Supreme Court seeking the removal of 26 verses from the Quran that he (Rizvi) thinks “promote terrorism and jihad”.

Action?

Taking cognizance of the “objectionable” speech, an FIR has been lodged against Ameerul Hasan under IPC section 505(2) (statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes) and 506 (criminal intimidation) at the Civil Lines police station on Sunday, said Assistant Superintendent of Police, Moradabad, Amit Kumar Anand.

Question of Interest: Why not Section 108 of IPC?

The police have filed a case under IPC section 505 (2) and section 506. Why not section 108?

BTW: The section 108 IPC concerns abetment of an offence. The section reads (source: https://indiankanoon.org/):

108. Abettor.—A person abets an offence, who abets either the commission of an offence, or the commission of an act which would be an offence, if committed by a person capable by law of commit­ting an offence with the same intention or knowledge as that of the abettor.

Explanation 1.—The abetment of the illegal omission of an act may amount to an offence although the abettor may not himself be bound to do that act.

Explanation 2.—To constitute the offence of abetment it is not necessary that the act abetted should be committed, or that the effect requisite to constitute the offence should be caused.

Illustrations

(a) A instigates B to murder C. B refuses to do so. A is guilty of abetting B to commit murder.

(b) A instigates B to murder D. B in pursuance of the instigation stabs D. D recovers from the wound. A is guilty of instigating B to commit murder.

Explanation 3.—It is not necessary that the person abetted should be capable by law of committing an offence, or that he should have the same guilty intention or knowledge as that of the abettor, or any guilty intention or knowledge.

Illustrations

(a) A, with a guilty intention, abets a child or a lunatic to commit an act which would be an offence, if committed by a person capable by law of committing an offence, and having the same intention as A. Here A, whether the act be committed or not, is guilty of abetting an offence.

(b) A, with the intention of murdering Z, instigates B, a child under seven years of age, to do an act which causes Z’s death. B, in consequence of the abetment, does the act in the absence of A and thereby causes Z’s death. Here, though B was not capable by law of committing an offence, A is liable to be punished in the same manner as if B had been capable by law of committing an offence, and had committed murder, and he is therefore subject to the punishment of death.

(c) A instigates B to set fire to a dwelling-house, B, in conse­quence of the unsoundness of his mind, being incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is wrong or contrary to law, sets fire to the house in consequence of A’s instigation. B has committed no offence, but A is guilty of abetting the offence of setting fire to a dwelling-house, and is liable to the punishment, provided for that offence.

(d) A, intending to cause a theft to be committed, instigates B to take property belonging to Z out of Z’s possession. A induces B to believe that the property belongs to A. B takes the property out of Z’s possession, in good faith, believing it to be A’s property. B, acting under this misconception, does not take dishonestly, and therefore does not commit theft. But A is guilty of abetting theft, and is liable to the same punishment as if B had committed theft.

Explanation 4.—The abetment of an offence being an offence, the abetment of such an abetment is also as offence. Illustration A instigates B to instigate C to murder Z. B accordingly insti­gates C to murder Z, and C commits that offence in consequence of B’s instigation. B is liable to be punished for his offence with the punishment for murder; and, as A instigated B to commit the offence, A is also liable to the same punishment.

Explanation 5.—It is not necessary to the commission of the offence of abetment by conspiracy that the abettor should concert the offence with the person who commits it. It is sufficient if he engages in the conspiracy in pursuance of which the offence is committed. Illustration A concerts with B a plan for poisoning Z. It is agreed that A shall administer the poison. B then explains the plan to C men­tioning that a third person is to administer the poison, but without mentioning A’s name. C agrees to procure the poison, and procures and delivers it to B for the purpose of its being used in the manner explained. A administers the poison; Z dies in consequence. Here, though A and C have not conspired together, yet C has been engaged in the conspiracy in pursuance of which Z has been murdered. C has therefore committed the offence defined in this section and is liable to the punishment for murder.

In India, Problem is not Law; Problem is Implementation: Soft Pedaling A Case

A police officer who chooses to soft pedal a case from the very beginning must be brought to justice. The Indian Courts are often blamed for delay and denial of justice. The fact is: Police, that soft pedals cases, is to be blamed in such cases. The concerned State Government must take notice and action against such officers, if they really mean business.

While the speech is splashed all over in social media, a police officer has filed FIR, Police will keep collecting evidence (forever).

It is not the first time!

India has history of many such calls in the past. Even in this case, earlier, the President of a Muslim outfit — Shiane Haider-e-Karrar Welfare Association— Hasnain Jaffrey announced a Rs 20,000 reward for Rizvi’s beheading.

What these tweets in English mean:

“Today again a call for beheading me has been given by Maulana Fayyaz of Karnatak, raising bounty to Rs. 1 crore”

“I want to tell these Maulana(s) that neither I will take back my petition nor back off; even if they behead me.”

“My great grand father was a Hindu. I am born in Hindustan. In my veins is the blood of my ancestors. That will not change due to such Maulana (s) so saying”

“Here and now is time for Muslims to accept that Bhagwan Ram and Hindus were our ancestors.”

The above tweets of Waseem Rizvi raise a few more questions for India as a modern nation in 2021: Is there no alternative to beheading in case of differences? No discussion, No debate? No freedom of thought and expression?

Let all Indians think together as a nation and find solutions good for the nation. B’cause thoughts not allowed to be expressed don’t fade away. They fester and show up in due course.

“Earth revolves around the Sun. Imprison him. Earth revolves around the Sun.”

A note shared by a Hindu from India: “My revered Guru is a Muslim. My best friend is a Muslim. Both of them are PhDs and Educators. There are a number of verses in Quran which they say are ‘contextual’, meaning relevant only in a certain context that was then and may not be today.

DISCLAIMER: The author is solely responsible for the views expressed in this article. The author carries the responsibility for citing and/or licensing of images utilized within the text.