Terrorist act and unreliable identification evidence shape the legal limits on conviction in communal violence cases

Communal violence that generates fear, insecurity and disruption of social harmony may fall within the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 where the proved facts show wider societal impact beyond ordinary crime. Approval and sanction under Section 20A are treated as valid when the sanctioning authority's order reflects application of mind to the investigation material and the statutory objection does not vitiate the proceedings. Conviction cannot safely rest on eyewitness testimony where identification is tainted by delay, prior exposure of the accused, absence of a test identification parade, contradictions with earlier statements, and material omissions; reliable proof of actual participation remains essential.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the acts alleged constituted a terrorist act so as to attract the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987; (ii) Whether the approval and sanction under Section 20A of the Act were valid; (iii) Whether the conviction could be sustained on the basis of the eyewitness evidence and identification.

Issue (i): Whether the acts alleged constituted a terrorist act so as to attract the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987.

Analysis: The expression "terrorist act" was examined in the light of the statutory scheme and prior authority. Violence which creates fear and insecurity in a section of society or disturbs social harmony and the even tempo of life can fall within the sweep of the Act. On the facts found, the occurrence took place in a tense communal atmosphere, involved the burning alive of several persons, and had a wider impact on society beyond ordinary criminal violence.

Conclusion: The acts were held to fall within the ambit of the Act and the challenge to its applicability failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the approval and sanction under Section 20A of the Act were valid.

Analysis: The Court held that the statutory approval requirement did not vitiate the proceedings on the facts, and the sanctioning authority's order, supported by its terms and evidence, showed application of mind to the materials collected in investigation. The objection based on want of jurisdiction and non-application of mind was rejected.

Conclusion: The approval and sanction were held valid.

Issue (iii): Whether the conviction could be sustained on the basis of the eyewitness evidence and identification.

Analysis: The eyewitnesses were scrutinised with greater care because of delay in examination, prior exposure of accused persons to witnesses, absence of test identification parade, inconsistencies between courtroom testimony and statements under Section 161, improbabilities regarding vantage points, and material omissions on central facts. The Court found the witnesses wholly unreliable and held that the identification evidence could not safely sustain conviction, especially where police had shown accused persons to witnesses and the evidence was riddled with contradictions.

Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were not sustainable on the evidence adduced.

Final Conclusion: The appellants were entitled to acquittal, and the convictions under the Act and the Penal Code were set aside with consequential release.

Ratio Decidendi: A conviction for communal violence and alleged terrorist activity cannot be sustained unless the prosecution proves, through credible and trustworthy evidence, that the accused were the actual perpetrators; where the eyewitnesses are wholly unreliable and identification evidence is tainted by delay, prior exposure, and material contradictions, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.

---