In 1885, a criminal revision case came before the High Court of Madras, in which a goldsmith performed abishēkam by pouring cocoanut-water over a lingam. In his judgment, one of the Judges recorded that "the facts found are that 1st accused, a goldsmith by caste, on the night of the last Mahāsivarātri, entered a Siva temple at Vizagapatam, and performed abishēkam, i.e., poured cocoanut-water over the lingam, the 2nd and 3rd accused (Brāhmans) reciting mantrams (sacred formulae) while he did so. Another Brāhman who was there expostulated with 1st accused, telling him that he, a goldsmith, had no right to perform abishēkam himself, upon which 1st accused said that it was he who made the idol, and he was fit to perform abishēkam. An outcry being raised, some other Brāhmans came up, and objected to 1st accused performing abishēkam, and he was turned out, and some ten rupees spent in ceremonies for the purification of the idol. The 2nd-class Magistrate convicted the 1st accused under sections 295 and 296, Indian Penal Code, and the 2nd and 3rd accused of abetment. All these convictions were reversed on appeal by the District Magistrate. There was certainly no evidence that any of the accused voluntarily caused disturbance to an assembly engaged in the performance of religious worship or religious ceremonies, and therefore a conviction under section 296 could not be supported. In order to support a conviction under section 295, it would be necessary for the prosecution to prove (1) that the accused ' defiled ' the lingam, and (2) that he did so, knowing that a class of persons, viz., the Brāhmans, would consider such defilement as an insult to their religion. It may be noted that the 1st accused is a person of the same religion as the Brāhmans, and, therefore, if the act be an insult at all, it was an insult to
