BALWANTSINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Balwant Singh, who was working as an Assistant in the office of D. P. I. Punjab in Chandigarh and Bhupinder Singh serving as a Senior Clerk in the Punjab School Education Board, Chandigarh, at the relevant time, were on 31st October, 1984 at about 5.45 p.m. arrested from near Neelam Cinema, Chandigarh and after completion of the investigation, tried for offences under Ss. 124A, and 153-A, I. P. C. They were each sentenced to suffer one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- on cash of the two counts. In default of payment of fine, they had to undergo three months further R. I. on each count. The substantive sentences were to run concurrently. Through this appeal under Section 14 of the Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act, 1984 both of them have challenged their conviction and sentence as recorded by the learned Judge of the Special Court, Chandigarh on 2-3-1985.

(2.) The prosecution case against the appellants is that in a crowde place in front of the Neelam Cinema, on 31st October 1984, the day Smt. Indira Gandhi, the then Prime Minister of India was assassinated, after coming out from their respective offices after the duty hours, raised the following slogans:

(3.) According to the testimony of Som Nath P. W. 2 and Labh Singh P. W. 3, they had left the police station at about 5 p. m. or 5. 15 p. m. and while they were partrolling in the area of the main market of Sector 17, Chandigarh, they noticed both the appellants raising slogans, as noticed above. Both the witnesses conceded that when slogans were being raised, the people in general were going about doing their jobs and they did not gather on hearing the slogans but stated that some people went away out of 'fear', In cross-examination, Som Nath P. W. 2 admitted that he could not name anyone or even suggest whether any one out of the passers-by got afraid on hearing the slogans and fled away from the place. According to the witnesses, both the appellants had raised the slogans together. Though P. W. 2 could not state as to how many times each of the three slogans was raised by the appellants, P. W. 3 ASI Labh Singh admitted in the cross-examination that the slogans "khalistan Zindabad" was raised about five or six times while the second slogan "Raj karega Khalsa" was raised two or four times and that the third slogan was raised only once or twice. ASI Labh Singh PW also admitted that the slogans had been raised by the appellants before they were arrested and that they did not raise any slogans afterwards. ASI Labh Singh PW, however, added that the appellants raised slogans while they were being apprehended once or twice and to the same effect is the statement made by P. W. 2 Som Nath, who, however, was confronted with his police statement recorded under Section 161, Cr. P. C., wherein he had not mentioned that the appellants raised any slogan while being apprehended. The appellants in their statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C., denied the prosecution allegations against them. According to Balwant Singh, Bhupinder Singh, appellant came to his office at about 4.30 p.m. and they left together after he finished his day's duty at about 5 p. m. That while they were proceeding towards the bus stand, in order to take a bus to go to Mohali where they reside, they met Mewa Singh D. W. 2 and Surender Pal Singh D. W. 2 and Surender Pal Singh D. W. 3 near the fountain with whom they exchanged 'Sat Siri Akal.' Being an Amritdhari Sikh, he was wearing a kirpan. That near Neelam Cinema Dy S. P. Sudhir Mohan and Inspector Baldev Singh caught hold of them, presumably because he was wearing a kirpan and both of them had not tied their beards. That the police officials took them to the police station in Sector 17, in their jeep. ASI Labh Singh was present at the police station attending to the telephone. On their enquiry, as to why they had been brought to the police station and why they were being detained, ASI Labh Singh told him that only the senior officers who had brought them to the police station could give them an answer to their question. Bhupinder Singh, appellant made a substantially similar statement.