Indian Penal Code

Select Language Afrikaans Albanian Arabic Armenian Azerbaijani Basque Belarusian Bulgarian Bengali Catalan Chinese (Simplified) Chinese (Traditional) Croatian Czech Danish Dutch English Estonian Filipino Finnish French Galician Georgian German Greek Gujarati Haitian Creole Hebrew Hindi Hungarian Icelandic Indonesian Irish Italian Japanese Javanese Kannada Khmer Korean Latvian Lithuanian Macedonian Malay Maltese Marathi Nepali Norwegian Persian Polish Portuguese Punjabi Romanian Russian Serbian Slovak Slovenian Spanish Swahili Swedish Tamil Telugu Thai Turkish Ukrainian Urdu Vietnamese Welsh Yiddish

This is a collection of articles archived for the excellence of their content. You can help by converting these articles into an encyclopaedia-style entry, deleting portions of the kind normally not used in encyclopaedia entries. Please also fill in missing details; put categories, headings and sub-headings; and combine this with other articles on exactly the same subject. Readers will be able to edit existing articles and post new articles directly on their online archival encyclopædia only after its formal launch. See examples and a tutorial.

Embodies tenets of Islam, Hinduism

From the archives of The Times of India 2007, 2009

‘Penal code embodies tenets of Islam, Hinduism’

Saeed Khan | TNN

Ahmedabad: Gujarat High Court has observed that Indian Penal Code embodied the basic tenets of Islam and Hinduism that attack is permissible for self defence only and not to inflict injury to others. The order also defined Hinduism and the concept of jihad in detail.

Upholding a seven-year jail term awarded to two Muslims by a special Pota court in a firing incident on Surat-based lawyer Hasmukh Lalwala in 2002, a Bench comprising Justice Jayant Patel and Justice ZK Saiyed deprecated the act of violence as being revenge for post-Godhra violence.

Stressing that India is wedded to secular policy, the judges observed if citizens of the country start with mental strategy of division based on religion, it may result in damaging the unity of nation and consequently would tinker with the integrity and security of the nation.

‘‘Neither Hindu nor Muslim religion permits taking of revenge... no religion professes that if a person from one religion has committed misdeed, revenge should be taken from all persons following that religion,’’ the Bench observed.

The judges also dwelled on historical aspects and noted, ‘‘The Hinduism is based on principles of ‘Sahanshilta’. It has been cited so many times that it is on account of receptivity and adaptability of Hindu culture, it has survived for more than 5,000 years, though the number of persons following Hindu religion are less as compared to others in the world — Christians, Muslims and Buddhists...’’

The judges cited Maulana Wahiduddin Khan’s book ‘True Jihad’ to explain ‘Jihad’. Islam never permits ‘‘use of violence for taking revenge, but power is to be used only as a protective measure. It is only by way of self defence, attack is permissible. Such principles are interwoven even in the IPC for invoking the right of self defence,’’ the order states.

The court also observed, ‘‘The country is like a family having members of different ways of thinking and sometimes different way of praying to the God. Merely because the ways to get the blessings of God are different, one cannot divide the family...’’ The accused sentenced are Mohammed Tahir Bakaswala and Ashraf Nagori. Two others Liversingh Chikhligar and Ishaq Makrani died as undertrials and Salim Variava is absconding in this case.