JAGDISH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 17/05/1989. passed by the Additional Judge, Designated court, Bhiwani at hissar convicting the appellant under Section 5 of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) act 1987 (here in after referred to as the TADA' act) read with Section 25 of the Arms Act for which the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years.

(2.) According to the prosecution, in the afternoon of 31/07/1988, when Saijan Kumar PW-1, along with one Kedar Nath-PW-3. was going to village sirsa in Rajasthan, the appellant along with one nagina and one more person stopped them at the point of pistol. Kedar Nath was commanded to part with his valuables. After looting them, the appellant and his companions went towards Rajasthan. Sajjan kumar. PW-1 went to village Chuli Khurd where he raised raula attracting several villagers who chased the appellant and his companions. In the field of one bhishm Pal in village Chuli Khurd itself, the appellant and his companions were apprehended by the villagers and Sajjan Kumar. The country made pistol was taken from the possession of the appellant and produced before the Police Inspector. The said pistol was taken into possession by Randhir Singh pw-2, the S. H. O. vide Ex. P-A. After taking possession of the said arm, it was sealed by him. On the basis of FIR No. 97 an offence under Section 392/307 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as the offence under Section 5 of TADA Act read with section 25 of the Arms Act were registered. The appellant and his companions were separately tried by Sessions court under Section 392/307. The appellant was tried before the Designated court for the offence under Section 5 of TADA read with Section 25 of the Arms Act. After trial, the appellant was convicted under Section 5 of TADA read with section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced as said earlier.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant assailed the evidence of Sajjan Kumar PW-1, and Kedar nath PW-3, by contending that they are not reliable witnesses but have falsely implicated the appellant in the alleged offence.