Conversion To Christianity: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Man Accused Under MP Freedom Of Religion Act

The Supreme Court quashed criminal case against a man accused of forcibly converting a person to Christianity.

According to the prosecution, the George Mangalapilly had converted one Dharmendar Dohar to Christianity. He was charged for offences punishable under Sections 153(B)(1) and 295-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the M.P. Freedom of Religion Act, 1968.

In the trial that followed, Dharmendar Dohar in his examination-in chief denied that he was converted by the accused.  He stated that his signatures were obtained on a piece of paper by certain persons, on the basis of which the prosecution was launched against the accused. The witness was declared hostile and was extensively cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor.

Following this development, George approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court seeking to quash criminal proceedings against him. Partly allowing his petition filed under Section 482 CrPC, the court observed that as far as the case pertained to the offences punishable under Sections 153-B(1) and 295-A IPC, in the absence of requisite sanction, he could not be prosecuted in respect of said offences.

However, with regard to the offences punishable under Section 3 & 4 of the M.P. Freedom of Religion Act, the High Court observed that the evidence led before the trial court could not be relied upon to grant any benefit in terms of Section 482 of the Code.

The Apex Court bench of Justices UU Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and CT Ravikumar, in appeal filed by the accused, held that the testimony of the witness is significant in this case. 

"In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and especially when the entire fulcrum of the prosecution rests upon the version of the man who was stated to be forcibly converted, in our view, the testimony of said person assumes great significance. According to his own version neither was he forcibly converted nor had the appellant contacted him at any juncture.", the bench observed while allowing the appeal.

Click here to Read/Download Order