Uncorroborated evidence and mere weapon possession cannot sustain communal enmity or terror charges without proof of statutory intent.

Uncorroborated police testimony about an alleged communal speech was held insufficient to sustain convictions under communal enmity provisions, because the other witnesses and recovered pamphlets did not support the prosecution version. Possession and control of bombs, explosive materials and a sword were treated as sufficient only to the extent of statutory possession offences: the Arms Act count was altered to the possession-based provision, and the Explosive Substances Act convictions were upheld. The court found no reliable evidence of communal design or terrorist intent, so the IPC communal enmity convictions and UAPA convictions were set aside. The acquittal of the 22nd accused was also upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the solitary testimony of the police officer regarding the alleged speech was reliable enough to sustain the conviction under the communal enmity provisions; (ii) whether the proved possession and control of bombs, explosive materials and a sword justified conviction under the Arms Act and the Explosive Substances Act; (iii) whether the evidence established offences under the communal enmity provisions and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act; and (iv) whether acquittal of the 22nd accused called for interference.

Issue (i): Whether the solitary testimony of the police officer regarding the alleged speech was reliable enough to sustain the conviction under the communal enmity provisions.

Analysis: The evidence of the police officer about the alleged speech was not corroborated by the other police witnesses or the independent witnesses who were present at the scene. The court found that the speech was heard only for a brief period, that the other witnesses did not speak to it, and that the recovered pamphlets did not support the prosecution version of communal provocation.

Conclusion: The alleged speech was not proved with acceptable evidence and the conviction under the communal enmity provisions could not be sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether the proved possession and control of bombs, explosive materials and a sword justified conviction under the Arms Act and the Explosive Substances Act.

Analysis: The bombs fell within the concept of ammunition and the sword fell within the concept of arms. There was no proof of use, manufacture, sale, transfer, conversion, repair, testing or proof so as to attract the originally applied Arms Act provision. However, possession of ammunition in contravention of the statutory prohibition was established. The evidence also established possession and control of explosive substances with the requisite unlawful intent and without lawful object.

Conclusion: The conviction under the originally applied Arms Act provision was altered to Section 25(1)(B)(a), and the convictions under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act were upheld.

Issue (iii): Whether the evidence established offences under the communal enmity provisions and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.

Analysis: The court found no convincing evidence of any communal design, no reliable proof that the assembly was intended to promote enmity or disturb public tranquility, and no acceptable material showing a terrorist act or preparatory act within the meaning of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. Mere possession of weapons and explosive materials, without proof of the requisite intent, was insufficient. The accused's silence under Section 313 could not fill the gap in the prosecution case.

Conclusion: The convictions under Sections 153A and 153B(1)(c) of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 18 and 18A of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act were set aside.

Issue (iv): Whether acquittal of the 22nd accused called for interference.

Analysis: The 22nd accused was not named in the first information report, his implication came later, and the evidence connecting him with the premises, the scooter, or the recoveries was not convincing. The trial court's view of doubt was found to be justified.

Conclusion: The acquittal of the 22nd accused was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The convictions were sustained only for conspiracy, unlawful assembly and the proved explosive-substances offences, the sentence on the Arms Act count was modified, the communal enmity and anti-terror law convictions were set aside, and the sentence for the surviving counts was enhanced.

Ratio Decidendi: A conviction for communal enmity or terrorist activity cannot rest on uncorroborated and doubtful testimony or on mere possession of weapons and explosives; the prosecution must prove the requisite intent and the statutory ingredients beyond reasonable doubt.

---