9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Conviction and sentence under Section 5 of Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act,1987 (TADA).
Summary: The appellant challenged his conviction and sentence under Section 5 of TADA by the Designated Court II, Delhi. The prosecution's case involved the appellant's involvement in a riot where he was found holding a country-made pistol. The police arrested him and seized the pistol, which was later confirmed to be a firearm by the Central Forensic Science Laboratory. The appellant was tried, convicted, and sentenced under TADA based on this evidence. To establish the appellant's connection to the crime, seven witnesses were examined, including police officials and formal witnesses. The police witnesses testified to the appellant's involvement in the riot and possession of the pistol, which was corroborated by other witnesses. The appellant claimed innocence but did not provide any evidence in defense. The appellant's counsel argued that reliance on police officials' testimony without independent corroboration was unsafe. However, the court found the police witnesses' testimony reliable and trustworthy, leading to the appellant's conviction under TADA. The court also rejected arguments regarding the expiry of TADA and the lack of evidence connecting the appellant's possession of the pistol to terrorist activities. In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal, upholding the appellant's conviction under Section 5 of TADA based on the established facts and legal precedents.
|
