1999 (9) TMI 951 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction under Section 3(2)(i) of TADA 1985.
2. Sentence of death penalty.
3. Applicability of TADA 1985 after its expiry.
4. Alternative sentencing under TADA 1987.

Summary:

1. Conviction under Section 3(2)(i) of TADA 1985:
The appellant, Gian Singh, was convicted by a Designated Court under the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 (TADA 1985) for the murder of Sant Harchand Singh Longowal. The court found that the appellant shared the common intention to murder Sant Longowal and his comrades, and fired revolvers in pursuance thereof. The evidence presented by multiple eyewitnesses, including PW-29 Surinder Singh and PW-34 Karamjit Singh, was deemed credible, confirming the appellant's involvement in the terrorist act.

2. Sentence of Death Penalty:
The Special Judge sentenced the appellant to death for the offence under Section 3(2)(i) of TADA 1985, as no alternative sentence was prescribed under the Act. The appellant's counsel argued for a reduction of the sentence to imprisonment for life, considering the appellant had already spent over 14 years in jail.

3. Applicability of TADA 1985 after its Expiry:
TADA 1985 expired on 22.5.1987, but Section 1(3) of the Act included a saving clause that allowed for the continuation of liabilities, penalties, or punishments incurred under the Act. The Supreme Court referenced the legal principle that proceedings under a temporary Act must be completed before its expiry, but acknowledged the saving clause in TADA 1985 that permitted ongoing legal actions as if the Act had not expired.

4. Alternative Sentencing under TADA 1987:
The Supreme Court noted that TADA 1987, which succeeded TADA 1985, provided an alternative punishment of imprisonment for life for the same offence. The Court emphasized the jurisprudential philosophy of Article 20(1) of the Constitution, which prohibits imposing a greater penalty than what was prescribed at the time of the offence. The Court concluded that the benevolent provisions of TADA 1987 could be extended to the appellant, allowing for the alternative sentence of imprisonment for life.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court confirmed the appellant's conviction under Section 3(2)(i) of TADA 1985 but altered the sentence from death to imprisonment for life, considering the provisions of TADA 1987 and the appellant's prolonged incarceration. The other sentences remained undisturbed and were to run concurrently with the main sentence.