P. Sathasivam, J. - (1.) These appeals, under Section 19 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "the TADA Act") are directed against the common judgment dated 19.04.2007 of the Designated Judge at Assam, Gauhati in TADA Sessions Case No. 1 of 1996 whereby the Designated Judge convicted Pulin Das @ Panna Koch-appellant in Criminal Appeal No.706 of 2007 and Mahendra Saikia @ Dilip Saikia-appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 836 of 2007 for offences under Section 3(2)(ii) of the TADA Act and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default further R.I. for another six months.
(2.) Brief facts, in a nutshell, are as follows: On the night of 08.12.1993, on secret information, the police party under the leadership of S.P. Sonitpur and S.D.P.O., Bishwanath Chariali raided the house of Uday Chetry. It was alleged that the extremist fired upon the police party and the police party also fired in self-defence and as such there was exchange of fire from both sides and thereafter Pulin Das @ Panna Koch-appellant in Crl.A.No.706 of 2007 and Mahendra Saikia @ Dilip Saikia-appellant in Crl.A. No. 836 of 2007 were apprehended and arms and ammunitions were recovered from their possession. On the basis of the above incident, an F.I.R. No.187/1993 was recorded and the police registered a case under Sections 3/4/5 of the TADA Act. On 17.12.1995, Charge Sheet No.101 of 1995 in FIR No.187/1993 was filed against both the accused. On 30.08.2006, statements of the appellants-accused were recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The prosecution examined nine witnesses in Supplort of its case and exhibited the seizure list (Ex.1, the FIR (Ex.2, the sketch map(Ex.3, the expert report (Ex.4, prosecution sanction(Ex.5) and the charge-sheet (Ex.6) and also exhibited the seized arms and ammunitions (Mat. Ex.1-4). The Designated Court, Assam, Gauhati convicted the appellants herein under Section 3(2)(ii) of TADA and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default further rigorous imprisonment for another six months. However, the Designated Court acquitted the accused persons under Section 5 of the TADA Act as there was no evidence available for possession of unauthorized arms and ammunition. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants preferred separate appeals before this Court.
(3.) Heard Mr. Nitin Sangra, learned counsel, for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.706 of 2007 and Mr. Vijay Hansaria, learned senior counsel, for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.836 of 2007 and Mr. Avijit Roy, learned counsel, appearing for the State of Assam.;