ANADHARAJ Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 3 (4) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (in short, TADA Act) and the minimum sentence of 5 years rigorous imprisonment has been imposed upon him.

(2.) It was alleged against the appellant that he had harboured LTTE terrorist, Santhan @ Gundu Santhan @ Periya Santhan @ Bonda Santhan @ Trichy Santhan in his house on 12.1.91. In order to prove its case, the prosecution had examined Public Witness es-110, 111, 112, 121, 122, 178, 184, 194, 195, 204, 205, 196. Out of those witnesses only Public Witnesses. 184, 194 and 204 and 205 deposed that Santhan (not A-1) was a proclaimed offender. Relying upon that evidence the learned Designated Judge convicted the appellant (A-9) under Section 3 (4) of the TADA Act.

(3.) What is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant is that no evidence was led by the prosecution to prove that Santhan (who had consumed cyanide capsule on that very day and died) had committed any terrorist act. He also submitted that no such finding has been recorded by the Court. What has been found against him is that he knew that Santhan was a proclaimed offender. He submitted that the evidence was not sufficient for convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 3 (4) of the TADA Act.