Conviction under anti-terror law set aside after evidence and investigation were found seriously flawed

A conviction under Section 4 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act was found unsustainable because the prosecution evidence contained serious infirmities. Full reappraisal of the record showed that the alleged inflammatory speech rested only on two intelligence witnesses, despite a large crowd and substantial police presence, and no independent witness was examined though such evidence was available. The rough notes said to underlie the report were not produced, and the investigation was described as perfunctory, with no meaningful enquiry into the accused's antecedents or related allegations. The conviction and sentence were set aside and acquittal followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction under Section 4 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 could be sustained on the basis of the prosecution evidence and the investigation conducted.

Analysis: The Court held that, in an appeal lying directly to it under Section 16 of the Act, the evidence had to be reappraised in full. On such scrutiny, the prosecution version was found to suffer from serious infirmities. The presence of a large crowd and a substantial police force made it unnatural that only the two intelligence witnesses would remain to hear the alleged inflammatory speech. No independent witness from among the many persons present was examined, though such evidence was readily available. The alleged rough notes were not produced, and the report based on them could not be accepted unreservedly. The investigation was also found to be perfunctory, with no meaningful enquiry into the appellant's antecedents or the other allegations said to have been made against him.

Conclusion: The conviction and sentence under Section 4 were not sustainable, and the appellant was entitled to acquittal.

---