LAWS(SC)-2000-4-131

SAGAYAM Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Decided On April 26, 2000
SAGAYAM Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant before us had been charged for offences under Sections 3 and 5 of Terrorists and Disruptive Activities Act, 1987 and under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The case against the appellant and accused No. 2 (who was absconding whose case was separated) are rowdy elements and are so recorded in the concerned Police Stations. It is alleged that there are 17 cases registered against them the details of which are not forthcoming. On the charge sheet being filed before the Jurisdictional Magistrate, he committed to the Court of the Principal Sessions Judge at Kolar. Later, the case had been treated as one arising under TADA and filed by the Designated Court.

(2.) The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges. The prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses and statement of the appellant under Section 313, Cr. P.C. is also recorded. The defence taken up by the appellant is that the case pleaded against them is totally concocted and the witnesses who are police personnel have given interested testimony. Witnesses other than police officers did not support the case of the prosecution. The witnesses PWs 2 to 5 and 7 and 8 raided the premises of the appellant and conducted investigation at different stages. The Designated Court relying upon the evidence of 8 police officers and a confessional statement made under Exh. P-7 convicted the accused under Sections 3 and 5 of the TADA and Section 307, I.P.C. and convicted him to undergo sentence of 5 years under TADA and 10 years under Section 307, I.P.C. Against the said conviction and sentence passed against the appellant, this appeal is filed.

(3.) In order to constitute an act to be a 'terrorist act', the meaning assigned to that expression under Section 3(1) of the TADA has to be borne in mind and the expression "terrorist" has to be accordingly construed. Section 3 has come up for consideration before this Court on many occasions and the decisions rendred therein lay down that the person who does any act by using any of the substances enumerated in the aforesaid provision in any manner as specified therein cannot be said to commit a terrorist act unless the act is done with the intent to do.