Nanavati, J. - (1.) THE appellant has filed this appeal under Section 19 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, challenging his conviction and also the order of sentence passed in TADA(P) file No. 23 of 7.9.94, by the Court of Additional Judge, Designated Court, Ferozepur at Bathinda.
(2.) THE prosecution case was that the appellant alongwith Suba Singh went to the house of Mukhtiar Singh armed with fire arms, at about 9.30 p.m. on 22 -9 -1992 scaled the wall of the courtyard and went inside the house and after reaching the place where Mukhtiar Singh was sitting alongwith his brother Basant Singh and his uncle Sudagar Singh told Mukhtiar Singh to handover his tractor as they wanted it. Mukhtiar Singh refused to part with the tractor. Thereupon Suba Singh opened fire and killed Mukhtiar Singh on the spot. According to the prosecution, at that time appellant Pal Singh was also having a pistol in his hand. after Killing Mukhtiar Singh they starting running away. Sudagar Singh was able to catch hold of Suba Singh and Basant Singh PW -2 was able to catch Pal Singh. Both the assailants however managed to escape but in the scuffle, Sudagar Singh was able to snatch away the AK -56 rifle of Suba Singh. Hearing the sound of gun fire Police Inspector Teja Singh reached the spot within a very short time and recorded the complaint of Basant Singh. It was then sent to the Police Station and an offence was registered on its basis and thereafter the investigation followed. On the basis of the material collected the Police charge sheeted both the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act. In order to prove its case, (apart from the other supporting evidence), the prosecution relied upon the evidence of two eye witnesses - Basant Singh (PW -2) and Sudagar Singh (PW -3) and also of Karnail Singh (PW -4) who had seen both the accused running away soon after the incident. Accepting their evidence, the Designated Court convicted appellant Pal Singh under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and also under Sections 3 and 4 of the TADA. Before the trial could begin accused Suba Singh was killed in an encounter and, therefore, the trial had proceeded only against appellant Pal Singh.
(3.) WHAT is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Designated Court has committed a grave mistake in accepting the evidence of the two eye witnesses - Basant Singh (PW -2) and Sudagar Singh (PW -3) and Sudagar Singh (PW -3) the evidence of Karnail Singh. He submitted that neither Basant Singh nor Sudagar Singh knew the assailants. That also become apparent from the fact that in the complaint which came to be recorded soon after the incident, names of the two assailants were not given and they were merely described as two unknown persons.;