Judgement

NATARAJAN, J.:- While allowing this appeal and setting aside the conviction of the appellant Balbir Singh under S. 4 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 (in short the Act) by our order dated 30-10-86 we had stated that the reasons for our judgment will follow. We now proceed to give the reasons for our judgment.

2. The appellant who holds the degrees of M.A. and B.T. was originally a Lieutenant in the Armed Forces. On account of some mental ailment he was discharged from the Army. Thereafter he joined the Haryana Education Department and was appointed as a Lecturer in the Government Higher Secondary School at Siwah. After about 7 years of service in that School he was transferred to the Government Senior Secondary School at Sanauli Khurd. He, however, continued to reside at Siwah since he could not get accommodation at Sanauli Khurd.

3. The circumstances under which the appellant has come to be convicted under S. 4 of the Act are to be found in the evidence of two prosecution witnesses viz. P.W. I Jagdish Chandra, a Police Constable and P.W. 2, Gian Chand, a Head Constable. One other witness Ramji Lal (P.W. 3), an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police is also a prosecution witness but since he speaks only about the filing of the charge-sheet his evidence is not very material.

4. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 is to the following effect. Pursuant to a call given by the Bhartiya Kisan Union for a Rail Roko Abhiyan on 2-9-85 a crowd of about 1500 persons had gathered on the forenoon of that day at a place near the railway line in the village Siwah, Tehsil Panipat, District Karnal. To safeguard the railway line and to maintain the law and order, the authorities had posted a large contingent of police at the place of fathering of the demonstrators. In spite of the presence of the police force the demonstrators became violent and attempted to cause damage to the railway line and also indulged in throwing brickbats at the police force. To control the situation the police party had to resort to lathi charge on four or five occasions and also to firing tear-gas shells. At one point of time, as the violence did not abate the police had to resort to shooting also. One of the demonstrators died on account of gun shot injuries and some others sustained injuries due to the lathi charge.

5. The appellant, it is stated, came at about 8 or 8.30 P.M. to the place where the lathi charge and shooting had taken place and addressed the demonstrators and incited them to violence. In his inflammatory speech the appellant is said to have condemned the actions of the Central Government and the State Government in trying to appease the rebel elements and extremists of Punjab by sacrificing the interests and welfare of the people of Haryana and further stated that if the people of Haryana want to protect their rights they should also resort to the ways and methods adopted by the Punjab extremists and that for his part he was prepared to lead their struggle since he had an eight-chamber revolver and that he had on an earlier occasion attempted to kill Ch. Bhajan Lal, Chief Minister of Haryana and hence the demonstrators may lend him their co-operation so that the Government can be forced to safeguard the interests of the people of Haryana.

6. P. Ws. 1 and. 2, who were on intelligence duty, carefully listened to the speech and on the next morning P.W. 1 presented a report (Exhibit P-A) at the Police Station at Nissing. Thereupon a case was registered against the appellant under S. 4 of the Act and after completion of investigation he was charge-sheeted in the Court of Shri S. K. Jain, Judge, Karnal, the Designated Court under the Act.

7. As already stated the prosecution rested its case on the testimony of P.Ws. 1 and 2, they being the material witnesses. The appellant denied the prosecution case and stated in defence that on compassionate grounds he went to the place of congregation of the demonstrators to make enquiries when