ERRAM SANTOSH REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This appeal is filed under S. 16 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 (for short 'Tada') against the judgment of the Designated Court, Khammam. The appellants were found guilty under S. 307 read with S. 34 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and under Ss. 3 and 3(2)(ii) of the 'Tada' for a period of five years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 100/ - each for the above offence in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each. They were also convicted under S. 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to three years' imprisonment. A-1 is also convicted and sentenced to two years imprisonment for the offences under S. 25(1)(a) of the Indian-Arms Act. The prosecution case is as follows :

(2.) These appellants along with another accused A-3 were tried for the above said offence. It is alleged that all these accused are the organising cadre of the CPI (ML) Group lead by Sri Kondappalli Seetharmaiah, creating terror in the people with the intention to overawe the Government established by law in the State of Andhra Pradesh by using fire-arms, bombs etc. and they were involved in number of cases. On 12-1-1986 in the early hours the Inspector of Police, P.W. 5, on receiving credible information that A-1, who had gone underground, is organising his party to commit terrorist acts and disruptive activities in a house rented by A-3 at Burhanpuram locality, raided the premises. Observing that the appellants have been surrounded by the police party, A-1 to A-5, who were in the house, hurled a bomb with a view to kill the police. Then P.W. 5 gave a warning and the accused surrendered and from them several arms and other explosives were recovered. Punchnama was duly prepared in the presence of panch-witnesses. A-1 was in possession of loaded revolver, A-2 was in possession of one handgranade, A-3 to A-5 were in possession of country made bombs. The First Information Report was lodged and a case was duly registered in the abovesaid offences. During the investigation it was established that the premises was taken on lease by A-3 and the other four accused A-1, A-2 and A-4 and A-5 were residing therein. After obtaining the sanction from the District Collector, under S. 8 of the Explosive Substances Act and Section 25(1)(a) of Indian Arms Act, the charge-sheet was laid. The charges under the above sections were framed and in support of its case the prosecution examined P.W. 1 to P.W. 6. The accused when examined under S. 313 denied the case.

(3.) The evidence for. the prosecution mainly consists of the persons who conducted the raid namely P.W. 1 and P.W. 5. P.W. 2 the owner of the premises, having supported the prosecution in his earlier statement, turned hostile. P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 are the other material witnesses. The learned Designated Judge accepting the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 3 and 5 reached the conclusion that during the raid the police recovered the fire-arms and explosive substance from the possession of the appellants. A-3 was, however, acquitted on the ground that he was only a tenant and case against him was not established. With the circumstances P.W. 2, the landlord, himself turned hostile. The learned Designated Judge concluded that the evidence of P. W. 5 coupled with the evidence of P.W. 1 establish the prosecution case.