1987 (1) TMI 481 - SC - Indian Laws

Setting aside the conviction of the appellant Balbir Singh under Section 4 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act 1985 Held that - We are constrained to observe that it is highly regrettable that the authorities concerned should have launched a prosecution under the Act in a manner which can be easily termed as cavalier. The Act though intended to effectively deal with terrorists and disruptionists contains drastic provisions for punishing terrorists and disruptionists under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. Anyone convicted under Section 3(2)(i) of the Act is liable to be punished with death and whoever is convicted under Section 3(2)(ii) of the Act is liable to be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 5 years but which may extend to term of life and shall also be liable to fine. Whoever is convicted under Section 4 of the Act is liable to be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 3 years but which may extend to term of life and shall also be liable to fine. Furthermore against any judgment sentence or order rendered under the Act an appeal would lie directly to the Supreme Court and not to the High Court. Having regard to all these features the investigation of cases under the Act has not only to be thorough but also of a high order. In this case we find the investigation to be nowhere near the required standards and likewise the evidence adduced in the case to be far from satisfactory to justify the conviction of the appellant under Section 4 of the Act. The appeal has therefore to be necessarily allowed and the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant set aside.

Summary

Issues:
Conviction under Section 4 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 based on incitement to violence during a protest.

Detailed Analysis:
The appellant, a former Lieutenant in the Armed Forces, was convicted under Section 4 of the Act for allegedly inciting violence during a protest. The prosecution's case relied on the testimonies of two police witnesses who claimed the appellant delivered an inflammatory speech encouraging violence against the government. The appellant denied the allegations, stating he was at the protest site to make inquiries after learning about police actions against the demonstrators. The prosecution's evidence primarily rested on the accounts of the two police witnesses, with the appellant presenting a defense and questioning the credibility of the witnesses.

The Designated Court found the appellant guilty based on the prosecution's evidence and sentenced him to three years' rigorous imprisonment. However, the Supreme Court, hearing the appeal as the final appellate authority under the Act, scrutinized the evidence thoroughly. The Court highlighted several discrepancies and shortcomings in the prosecution's case. It noted the lack of credible evidence, inconsistencies in witness testimonies, and deficiencies in the investigation process.

The Supreme Court pointed out significant discrepancies in the prosecution's narrative, such as the sudden departure of the entire police force from the protest site, leaving only the two intelligence officers as witnesses. The Court questioned the absence of independent witnesses to corroborate the alleged inflammatory speech by the appellant. It also criticized the investigative lapses, including the failure to verify the appellant's claims or gather substantial evidence before filing charges.

The Court emphasized the stringent provisions of the Act, which mandate thorough investigations and high standards of evidence due to the severe penalties imposed on convicted individuals. Given the numerous flaws in the prosecution's case and the lack of substantial evidence, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the appellant's conviction and sentence under Section 4 of the Act. The Court expressed disappointment at the cavalier approach taken in initiating the prosecution and underscored the necessity for meticulous investigations and robust evidence in cases involving the Act.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court's judgment highlighted the importance of upholding legal standards and ensuring a fair and thorough legal process, especially in cases with severe implications under specialized legislation like the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985. The Court's decision to overturn the conviction underscored the need for credible evidence and meticulous investigations to justify legal actions under such stringent statutes.