K.T.Thomas, R.P.Sethi - (1.) APPELLANT was first accused in a case before a designated court. There were two more accused along with him, one was his brother and the other was his father. They were acquitted, but appellant was convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention Act, 1987, T.A.D.A.). On the first count, he was sentenced to imprisonment for 7 years and on the second count, he was sentenced to imprisonment for 6 years. As this appeal was filed under Section 19 of the T.A.D.A., appellant has a statutory right to maintain this appeal.
(2.) WE heard Ms. S. Janani, advocate in extenso. Mr. Udai Kumar, advocate for the State of Punjab wanted some more time to produce the translated copies of the depositions but Ms. S. Janani, advocate argued with reference to the evidence in this case and we felt that it would not be fair to adjourn the matter as the appellant is continuing in jail. The prosecution case relates to an episode which happened on 31.7.1990. During the said period, there was great turbulence in the State of Punjab, T.A.D.A. was enforced to contain the terrorists activities. According to the prosecution, P.W. 7 (Jarnail Singh) Sub-Inspector of Police, on getting information that terrorists were being harboured in the house of the appellant, proceeded to that house with a posse of police personnel during the wee hours of the day. P.W. 7, father of the appellant was woken up (who was arraigned as A-3 in the trial court) from whom the police officer knew that some other persons were on the upstairs of the building. He, therefore, rushed to that place and found the appellant, his brother (A-2-Amar Singh) and another terrorist who was a proclaimed offender. P.W 7 immediately signalled to his police force to encircle the house, so that, any bid for escape by the terrorist could be prevented. A-2 Amar Singh fired at P.W. 7 with one AK-47 and he sustained injuries thereby. Appellant-Manjit Singh fired at P.W. 7 with a country made pistol/revolver (it is not clear as which was the one out of the two categories of firearms used by the appellant). The said firing hit P.W. 7 Jarnail Singh on his shoulder, etc. Appellant was arrested from the same place and others escaped. Appellant had sustained injuries as the police force fired at him in self defence. There can be no doubt that P.W. 7 had sustained firearm injuries. This is spoken to by P.W. 3 (Dr. B. D. Gupta) who examined P.W. 7. In fact the defence also could not dispute the fact that P.W. 7 sustained those injuries. He narrated the above prosecution version with all details. P.W. 5, a Head Constable (Harbans Singh) who too was in the force which reached the house of the appellant had given full details of the occurrence.
(3.) THE trial court accepted the evidence of P.W. 7 and P.W. 5 and found that prosecution has proved the case against appellant beyond any doubt. Accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. However, the designated court was not persuaded to convict the second accused (Amar Singh) and A-3 (Mohinder Singh), accordingly they were acquitted.;