AMARJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was tried for an offence under Section 4 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985, by the learned Sessions Judge, Meerut and vide judgment dated 7/6/1989, he was convicted for the said offence and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. Through this statutory appeal he has called in question, his sentence and conviction.

(2.) On 1/6/1985, Brijesh Chand, Public Witness 2, brother of Yogesh Chand maheshwari, Advocate, Public Witness I, found a threatening letter in an envelope at the door of his house. He handed over the same to Public Witness I. Four days later, on a 5/6/1985, he found yet another threatening letter in an envelope at the door of his house which also was handed over by him to Public Witness 1. A complaint was lodged with the Superintendent of Police, Muzaffamagar by Public Witness I with regard to the first threatening letter on 2/6/1985 and with regard to the second threatening letter on 5/6/1985 at PS Meerapur. The two letters exts. 2 and 3 along with the envelopes Exts. 27 and 28 were handed over to b the police along with the complaint. He also handed over the opinion of handwriting Expert, Brij Pal Singh, Ext. 22, to the police. According to ext. 22, the letters were written in the handwriting of Neeraj Kumar, accused. Formal case was registered by Yograj, Head Constable Public Witness 1. Magendra Pal Singh, Public Witness 9, Station House Officer, PS. Meerapur started investigation from 6/6/1985 onwards. During the investigation, he got information through an informant that the appellant Amarjit Singh Bunty had a hand in sending those letters and that the said Amarjit Singh was present at his house. On the basis of the information, SHO Magendra Pal singh along with SI Vinod Kumar Verma, Public Witness 8 and other police officials went to the house of the appellant and as soon as the appellant came out of the house, he was arrested by the police party at about 8. 00 a. m. From the search of the appellant, one country-made pistol and three cartridges were recovered. From the pocket of the shirt of the appellant, two envelopes, Exts. 4 and 25 containing two letters, Exts. 1 and 26 were also recovered. The letters and the envelopes were taken into possession vide memo Ext. Ka-7. They were put in a parcel which was sealed at the spot. Both the letters, like exts. 2 and 3, were threatening letters. During the investigation, the specimen writings of the appellant and Neeraj Kumar were obtained by the sub-Divisional Magistrate, on a request from the Investigating Officer, on 22/6/1985. The specimen writings along with the recovered letters and envelopes were sent to the government Handwriting Expert, Shri Prakash chand Pathak, Public Witness 3 for examination. Vide report Ext. Ka-2, the expert opined that the disputed writings tallied with the specimen writing of the appellant but did not tally with the specimen writing of Neeraj Kumar, who as already noticed was stated to be the author of Exts. 2 and 3 vide Ext. 22 by the other handwriting expert. Inspector Ram Chander Verma, Public Witness 4, who had taken over the investigation under orders of the Superintendent of police, submitted charge-sheet against the appellant on 4/7/1987, The prosecution examined 9 witnesses to connect the appellant with the crime. After the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the appellant in his statement under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code pleaded not guilty and denied the prosecution allegations against him. He denied to have written any letter as also the recovery of the letters and the envelopes from his possession. He stated that he had been arrested during the night at about 12. 00 or 1. 00 a. m. and made to write some letters by the police at their dictation. He denied thathe had any link with any institute or organisation advocating establishment of Khalistan or was in any other manner connected with any terrorist activity. The trial court after analysing the evidence concluded:

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the record.