Judgment :- M.M. MIRDHE, J. ( 1 ) THIS Revision Petition is preferred under section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr. P. C. by the petitioner against the order of the learned additional C.. M. , Shimoga, dated 31-8-1979 in c. C. No. 2728/1975 convicting the petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 298 of. P. C. and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month and also against the judgment dated 8-1-1987 of the learned Sessions judge, Shimoga, in Criminal Appeal No. 62/1979 filed by the petitioner, confirming the conviction of the petitioner and reducing the sentence to one of fine only. ( 2 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1 and the learned Government Pleader for Respondent No. 2 and perused the records of the case. ( 3 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 filed a complaint in the Court of Additional C.. M. , Shimoga against the petitioner and 14 other persons alleging that the petitioner in his meetings held on 27-5- 1975, 28-5-1975, 31-5-1975 and on 4-6-1975 in various places in Shimoga Town made speeches and made some remarks with intention to would the religious feelings of the particular sect and thereby he has committed an offence punishable under Section 298 of IPC. The learned magistrate after recording the evidence and hearing both sides convicted the petitioner for the said offence and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 1,000/ -. The petitioner challenged the said order in Criminal Appeal No. 62/1979 in the court of the Sessions Judge, Shimoga. The learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence to one of fine only. Against the said orders of the Courts below, the petitioner has preferred this Revision petition. ( 4 ) THE gist of the case of the Respondent no. 1 is that he is a Muslim following Tableequi school of thought and the petitioner is also Muslim following Sunni faith. Against the said orders of the Courts below, the petitioner has preferred this Revision petition. ( 4 ) THE gist of the case of the Respondent no. 1 is that he is a Muslim following Tableequi school of thought and the petitioner is also Muslim following Sunni faith. The petitioner is also an Imam of a Sunni Masjid of Bombay and Accused No. 2 to Accused No. 4 invited him to the shimoga and he came to Shimoga and delivered speeches at Azadnagar on 27-5-1975, at Tank mohalla on 28-5-1975, at Ameer Ahamed Circle on 31-5-1975 and at Marnamibylu on 4-6-1975. In all these speeches he deliberately and malaciously and with intention to outrage the religious feelings of followers of Deoband school of thought and Tableequi Jamait made certain remarks wounding the religious feelings of the complainant and his followers. ( 5 ) THE complainants case is that thepetitioner stated in his said speeches that Tablee- qui people are "kafirs" arid not Muslims and experts of Tabliqui Jamait are ignorant of basic fundamentals of religion and men folk of Tablee- qui Jamait are sending their women before the learned people of Sunni and that Tableequi jamait people say one thing and act the other and that Ashraf Ali Thanavi, Rasheed Ahamed, nanoti and Khaleel Ahamed are "kafirs" and that the Tableequi people should not be allowed to come to the Mosque and that they should not be permitted to be burried in the Muslim graveyards and they should not be provided with the register of marriages etc. It cannot be disputed that these words by themselves are enough to outrage the religious sentiments of any class and wound their feelings, but the real, question in this case is whether the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Accused No. 1 had made these remarks in his speeches. The petitioner has denied to have made these remarks. Therefore, the burden was on the prosecution to prove that the inflamatory speeches wounding the religious feelings of the complainant and his followers were really delivered by the petitioner in the meetings, as alleged by the complainant. ( 6 ) IN order to prove his case, the complainant examined himself and P. Ws. 2- to 5 as members of the audience who heard the speeches. P. W. 2 was the person who recorded the speeches and he also produced Exs. ( 6 ) IN order to prove his case, the complainant examined himself and P. Ws. 2- to 5 as members of the audience who heard the speeches. P. W. 2 was the person who recorded the speeches and he also produced Exs. P. 2 to p. 4 the Cassettes alleged to have been recorded by him. P. W. 6 is the Commissioner who was appointed by the Court to hear those Cassettes exs. P. 2 to P. 4 and translate them from Urdu to English. Exs. P. 2 to P. 4 are said to be the cassettes containing the inflammatory speeches of petitioner. ( 7 ) BEFORE this Court, main point urged out was whether the Courts below have properly assessed the evidentiary value of Exs. P. 2 to P. 4. It will be useful to refer to the Judgment of the Supreme Court which covers the law governing the evidentiary value of tape recorded statements and the question of admissibility of the tape recorded statements in evidence. The supreme Court by its Majority in Ram Singh v col. Ram Singh, AIR 1986 SC 3 Judgment has held as follows:-"per Majority (Varadarajan,. , contra):- the conditions for admissibility of a tape recorded statement are as follows: (1) The voice of the speaker must be duly identified by the maker of the record or by others who recognise his voice. In other words, it manifestly follows as a logical corollary that the first condition for the admissibility of such a statement is to identify the voice of the speaker. Where the voice has been denied by the maker it will require very strict proof to determine whether or not it was really the voice of the speaker. (2) The accuracy of the tape recorded statement has to be proved by the maker of the record by satisfactory evidence direct or circumstantial. (3) Every possibility of tampering with or erasure of a part of a tape recorded statement must be ruled out otherwise it may render the said statement out of context and, therefore, inadmissible. (4) The statement must be relevant according to the rules of Evidence Act. (5) The records cassette must be carefully sealed and kept in safe or official custody. (6) The voice of the speaker should be clearly audible and not lost or distorted by other sounds or disturbances. (4) The statement must be relevant according to the rules of Evidence Act. (5) The records cassette must be carefully sealed and kept in safe or official custody. (6) The voice of the speaker should be clearly audible and not lost or distorted by other sounds or disturbances. Where the voice recorded at number of places, were not very clear and there was tremendous noise while the statements were being recorded and there were erasures here and there in the tape and besides the voice recorded was not very clear and the Deputy Commissioner who recorded the statements on tape clearly admitted in his evidence that he did not place the recorded cassette in proper custody, that is to say, in the official record room after duly sealing the same and instead kept the same with himself without any authority and further admitted that when the transcript of the tape recorded statements was being prepared he was temporarily absent from his office to attend to certain other works and two of the witnesses whose statements were recorded denied the identity of their voice in the cassette and the third denied a good part of his statement and the tape recorded statements did not indicate the polling booth where it was recorded, the name of the person whose statement was recorded, the time of recording, etc. , the tape recorded statements of the witnesses were wholly inadmissible in evidence and, at any rate, they did not have any probative value so as to inspire any confidence (paras 108, 113 ). " ( 8 ) NOW it will have to be seen whether Exs. P. 2 to P. 4 satisfy the requirements of law for their admissibility in the evidence as held by the supreme Court in the ruling quoted above. The complaint is filed in this case on 7-8-1975. The offences are said to have taken place on 27-5-1975, 28-5-1975, 31-5-1975 and 4-6-1975. The complaint is filed nearly two months after the alleged offence. That there is a mention in the complaint that the speeches of petitioner were tape recorded, but it is not mentioned in the complaint that P. W. 2 recorded, the speeches. The evidence of P. W. 2 is to the effect that he sat in front of the dias where the petitioner was delivering the speeches and recorded the speeches in Exs. P. 2 to P. 4. The evidence of P. W. 2 is to the effect that he sat in front of the dias where the petitioner was delivering the speeches and recorded the speeches in Exs. P. 2 to P. 4. It is also in his evidence that he had handedover the speeches to P. W. 1 the complainant in the month of June itself. It this evidence is to be believed, then the complainant was having Exs. P. 2 to P. 4 in his possession almost two months prior to his filing of the complaint. But he has not produced these exs. P. 2 to P. 4 along with his complaint in the court. The Supreme Court has held in that ruling that every possibility of tampering with or erasure of a part of a tape recorded statement must be ruled out otherwise it may render the said statement out of context and, therefore, inadmissible. It has also further held that the recorded cassettes must be carefully sealed and kept in safe or official custody. There is nothing to infer in this case that after P. W. 2 recorded the speeches of petitioner in Exs. P. 2 to P. 4, they were properly kept in a safe custody under proper seal. The tapes Exs. P. 2 to P. 4 were said to be with the complainant almost two months prior to his filing the complaint and even at the time of filing of the complaint, these Exs. P. 2 to P. 4 were not produced before the Court, and there is no evidence to show in what condition these cassettes were kept by the complainant with him. From the evidence of complainant and his witnesses P. Ws. 2, 3, 4 and 5, it is clear that the relationship between the two groups of the people who follow different schools of thought in the same religion are not cordial. Therefore, both the Courts below ought to have taken in to consideration these aspects of the case. The possibility of tampering with Exs. P. 2 to P. 4 cannot be ruled out in view of the fact that they were with P. W. 2 and P. W. 1 without their being kept under seal and in safe custody. Therefore, non-compliance with this requirement regarding the admissibility of the tape recorded statements goes to the root of the matter in this case. P. 2 to P. 4 cannot be ruled out in view of the fact that they were with P. W. 2 and P. W. 1 without their being kept under seal and in safe custody. Therefore, non-compliance with this requirement regarding the admissibility of the tape recorded statements goes to the root of the matter in this case. If this lacuna is seen against the background or enemity existing between these two groups, it becomes apparent that it will not be safe to rely upon Exs. P. 2 to P. 4 as the possibility of tampering is not completely ruled out in this case. If these Exs. P. 2 to P. 4 are excluded from consideration, then w,e are left only with the oral evidence of P. Ws. 2, 3, 4 and 5. P. Ws. 2, 3, 4 and 5 have not given the exact words uttered by the petitioner but they have given the impression of the speeches made by the petitioner on the said occasions. The said P. Ws. 2,3,4 and 5 are highly interested witnesses. They have got every reason to involve the petitioner in a case on the ground that the petitioner happens to be the Head of another school of thought with which these witnesses do not agree. Merely because the witnesses are interested it cannot be a ground for this Court to reject their evidence. But the Court will have to scrutinize their evidence very carefully and callously. There is no independent corroboration to the evidence of these highly interested persons to make their evidence acceptable. ( 9 ) ONE important fact to be noted is that though the petitioner is said to have made speeches at public, there is no complaint by any other member of the public except P. W. 1 and that complaint is also after a lapse of nearly two months. The delay is not properly explained in this case. Therefore, the evidence in this case will not be acceptable for the following reasons:-(1) Exs. P. 2 to P. 4 will not be safe to be relied upon as the possibility of their tampering with cannot be ruled out hi this case. (2) The evidence of P. Ws. The delay is not properly explained in this case. Therefore, the evidence in this case will not be acceptable for the following reasons:-(1) Exs. P. 2 to P. 4 will not be safe to be relied upon as the possibility of their tampering with cannot be ruled out hi this case. (2) The evidence of P. Ws. 1, 2, 4 and 5 will not be safe to be relied upon in view of the fact that there is no corroboration from any independent witnesses though the speeches are said to have been made by the petitioner in the public. (3) There is no complaint by any members of the public. (4) There is inordinate delay in filing the complaint. e. nearly two months after the offence and that delay has not at all been explained by the complainant. In my opinion, these lacunae in the case of the prosecution are sufficient to create a reasonable doubt in the mind of the Court about the involvement of the petitioner in the offence alleged against him. The proper course for the courts is to give the benefit of doubt to the petitioner and acquit him. Hence I make the following order. ( 10 ) THE petition is allowed. The petitioner is acquitted of the offence with which he has been charged in this case and his conviction and sentence are set aside and his bail bonds are cancelled and he is set at liberty in this case.