KRISHNA MOHAN BARMAN Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is under Section 19 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 for short (the TADA) assailing the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 4(4) of the Act. The appellant has been sentenced to imprisonment for 5 years by the learned Designated Judge. The sole basis of conviction is the recovery of some documents alleged to have been hidden by one Pradip Kalita who was arrested in the course of investigation into an offence arising out of Bilaspara Police Station case. No doubt the statement of said Pradip become admissible under Section 15 of the Act but by no stretch of imagination the said statement and the recovery of the document in question from the house of the appellant, would attract sub-section (4) of Section 4 of the Act inasmuch as to attract sub-section (4) what is required to be proved by the prosecution is that the appellant has either hide-out or concealed or attempted to hide-out or conceal any terrorist. In our considered opinion it is difficult to conclude that the appellant did hide-out or conceal or attempted to hide-out or conceal any terrorist merely because some documents were recovered from the premises in question.

(2.) Mr. Jain, appearing for the State also fairly conceded that it is difficult to support the conviction in question. We, accordingly set aside the conviction and sentence and allow this appeal. Appellant may be set at liberty forthwith.