Sethi, J. - (1.) In the broad day light and in the capital city of the country, the appellants and one Mohabat Ali, the four young desperados entered the premises No. F-8/5, Model Town, Part-II, Delhi to commit robbery, in consequence of which Smt. Sheela was stabbed to death. The occurrence which took place on 20th June, 1990 is not the isolated act so far as the law and order and life and liberty of the people of the capital city and other parts of the country are concerned. By killing the deceased and subjecting Amarjeet Sharma to the threat of being killed by pointing a revolver at him, the resistance of the commission of the intended crime was immobilised. After registration of the First Information Report and completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons under Sections 302, 394, 397, 398, 342, 120B and 411, I. P. C. besides Sections 25, 27, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act and Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "TADA (P) Act").
(2.) The trial Court found appellant Vinod guilty of offences under Sections 392/34, 397 and 302, I. P. C. besides Section 5 of the TADA (P) Act. He was sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the offence under Section 302, I. P. C., for seven years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Sections 397, 392/34 and was also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the commission of offences under Section 5 of TADA (P) Act. Accused Mohabat Ali was convicted for the offences under Sections 392/34, I. P. C. and Section 5 of the TADA (P) Act and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- on each count. Appellants Nawabuddin and Sanjay Moley were sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each for the commission of offence under Sections 392/34, I. P. C. Various sentences were also imposed in case of default of payment of fine. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
(3.) Aggrieved by the judgment of the Designated Trial Court, the appellants have filed the present appeals contending that no case is made out against anyone of them and the trial Court committed a mistake of law for basing its findings and conviction on the evidence which was not only shaky and unreliable but also inadmissible in evidence under the relevant provisions of law.;