KISHORE SAHU Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant interlocutory application has been filed under Sec. 34(2) of Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 for suspension of sentence in connection with the Judgment of conviction dtd. 12/2/2025 and order of sentence dtd. 17/2/2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, Ranchi in Special Case No. 21 of 2002(P) in connection with Ghaghra P.S. Case No. 07 of 2002, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years alongwith fine of Rs. 50,000.00 for the offence under section 3(4) of Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 and in default of payment of fine, the appellant shall have to undergo an additional rigorous imprisonment of seven months; the appellant has further been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years alongwith fine of Rs. 50,000.00 for the offence under section 3(5) of Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 and in default of payment of fine, the appellant shall have to undergo an rigorous imprisonment of seven months; the appellant has further been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years alongwith fine of Rs. 50,000.00 for the offence under sec. 20(2) of Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 and in default of payment of fine, the appellant shall have to undergo an additional rigorous imprisonment of seven months; the appellant has further been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years alongwith fine of Rs. 20,000.00 for the offence under section 25(1-B)a of Arms Act and in default of payment of fine, the appellant shall have to undergo an additional rigorous imprisonment of two months and; the appellant has further been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years alongwith fine of Rs. 20,000.00 for the offence under section 26(1) of Arms Act and in default of payment of fine, the appellant shall have to undergo an additional rigorous imprisonment of two months.

(2.) It has been contended by Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel for the appellant that it is a case where no ingredient has come in course of trial establishing that the appellant is a member of MCC (a banned organization) so as to attract the offence of Section 3 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002.

(3.) It has been contended that even the confessional statement has not properly been proved as required to be proved under Section 32 of the Act, 2002.