BALBIR SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1095 · Decided: 20-01-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

BALBIR SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
JANUARY 20, 1987 
[A.P. SEN AND S. NATARAJAN, JJ.] 
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985, ss.3 
and 4---Conviction under-Prosecution evidence lacking in credibi-
lity-Conviction set aside~Investigation of cases under the Act to be 
not only thorough but also of a high Order. 
A crowd of about 1500 persons had gathered near the railway line 
in the village Siwah, District Kamal on the monrlng or 2.9.85 in 
response to a call given by the Bhartiya Kisan Union for a Rail Koko 
Ahhiyan. To safeguard the railway line and to maintain law and order 
the authorities posted a large contingent or police. Since the demon· 
strators became violent and attempted to cause damage to the railway 
line, the police force resorted to lathi charge four or five times during 
the day and in addition fired tear-gas and even resorted to shooting. 
The appellant, it is alleged, came at about 8 or 8.30 p.m. to the 
. place where lathi charge and shooting had taken place, addressed the 
demonstrators and incited them to violence. According to the prosecu· 
lion, P. Ws. 1 and 2, who were on intelligence duty, carefuUy listened to 
the speech and on the next monrlng P. W .1 presented a report at he 
Police Station. Thereupon a case was registered against the appellant 
under s.4 or the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 
1985 and after investigation he was charge-sheeted. The Designated 
Court under the Act accepted the prosecution evidence and found the 
appellant guilty and convicted him under s.4 of the Act. 
Allowing the appeal by the appellant, this Court, 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
HELD: 1. The Judge of the designated court was not justified in G 
holding the prosecution case proved beyond reasonable doubt and find· 
ing the appellant guilty under s.4 of the Act and convicting him accord· 
ingly. The prosecution evidence is not only lacking 'in credibility but also 
suffei;s from numerous infirmities. It is far from satisfactory to justify 
the conviction of the appellant under s.4. The conviction and sentence 
awarded to the appellant are therefore set aside. 
H 
1095 
fl 
c 
D 
E 
F 
c; 
1096 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1987] I S.C.R. 
2. Section 16 of the Act provides for an appeal against a judgment 
rendered hy a designated court to the Suprerne Court alone and to no 
other court. Consequently, this appeal constitutes the first appeal as 
well as the final appeal. Such being the case, the Suprerne Court has to 
necessarily scrutinise the evidence in its entirety and re-appraise the 
testirnony of witnesses to determine its evidentiary value. [J099G-H] 
3.1. P.Ws.l and 2 were not on security duty at that place but 
were only there to subrnit intelligence reports. When a lathi charge had 
been rnade even at 4.30 p.rn. it is inconceivable that the entire police 
force would have left the place in the evening and gone away elsewhere. 
Therefore, this unnatural version is put forward to cover up the lacuna 
for not exarnining any police officer of a higher rank regarding the 
inOarnrnatory speech alleged to have been rnade by the appellant at 
about 8.30 p.rn. on that day. [JJOOE-F] 
3.2 The prosecution could have certainly examined sorne inde-
pendent witnesses to prove what the appellant had spoken on that night. 
Surely, it cannot be said that am'Ong the 1500 or 2000 persons present 
there, no one would have corne forward to give evidence about what the 
appellant spoke on that night. No explanatiOn has been offered as to 
why no independent witness has been exarnined. In fact P.Ws.l and 2 
have not even stated that they tried to find out the names of any of the 
people assernbled there or rnade any effort to note down their names so 
that they can later be surnrnoned to appear as witnesses if a case was to 
be filed against the appellant. [UOOG-H; JJOJA] 
3.3 The appellant was a stranger to P. Ws. I and 2 and hence.they 
could not have known who he was and what was his occupation. P.Ws.l 
and 2 had not rnade any enquiries to find out who the aprellant was and 
where he was residing. The strange version given by P.W.l is that 
before the appellant began his speech he introduced hirnself to the 
dernonstrators by giving out his narne, address and ocrupation. The 
staternent, apart frorn its artificiality is not corroborated even by 
P. W .2. Another discrepancy noticed is that while P. W .1 has stated that 
the appellant addressed the gathering frorn the Chaubra with a r

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.