Sema, J. -
(1.)Aggrieved by the order dated 19th January, 2002 passed by the Addl. Judge, Designated Court, Guwahati in TADA Sessions Case No. 113 of 1992 convicting the appellant-Tarun Bora alias Alok Hazarika under Section 365, Indian Penal Code read with Section 3(1)/3(5) of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and sentenced him to undergo RI for 5 years for the offence under Section 365, I.P.C. and further R.I. for 5 years for the offences under Section 3(1) and 3(5) of the Act, the present appeal has been preferred. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(2.)An F.I.R. was lodged on 23-8-1991 by P.W. 6 with the Officer-in-Charge of the Bihpuria Police Station preceded by G.D. entry No. 275 dated 19-8-1991 stating therein that on 18-8-1991 at about 3.45 p.m. Bhola Kakati (P.W. 1), a resident of Fakrahi Village, was taken away from the house of Nandeswar Bora, a resident of the same village by ULFA extremist named Tarun Bora alias Alok Hazarika (appellant) with the help of 3-4 members of ULFA extremists by blind-folding him in a white ambassador car. Bhola Kakati (P.W. 1) was released by the abductor on 20-8-1991. Pursuant to the aforesaid F.I.R. the Officer-in-Charge of Bihpuria Police Station registered Case No. 303/91 dated 24-8-1991 under Sections 364/325/307/34, I.P.C. read with Section 3/4, TADA (P) Act. However, on perusal of the material submitted before him, the Addl. Judge, Designated Court framed a formal charge under Section 365, I.P.C. read with Sections 3(1) and 3(5) of TADA (P) Act against the appellant. The charge-sheet was read and explained to the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In the course of the trial, the Designated Court by its order dated 22nd February, 2000, discharged the other accused, namely, Madhab Saikia alias Uttam Barua, Prafulla Saikia alias Ruktim Choudhury, Bhaba Barua alias Manjil Phukan, Nirul Saikia and Mala Bora alias Hiren Saikia, for want of sufficient materials against them and proceeded the trial with the appellant.
(3.)The prosecution examined as many as six witnesses. The appellant declined to adduce any defence witness and in his examination under Section 313, Cr. P.C. he totally denied his involvement. The prosecution could not examine one witness-Nandeswar Bora from whose house Bhola Kakati (P.W. 1) was taken away as he had since died during the trial and before he was examined by the prosecution. After conclusion of the trial, charges under the aforesaid sections of law have been found well established against the appellant. By the impugned order, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.