9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Conviction under Section 3(5) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act. 2. Conviction under Section 3(1) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act. 3. Conviction under Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Conviction under Section 3(5) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act: The appellant was convicted under Section 3(5) of the Act, which was challenged on the ground that the alleged offence took place on 18.8.1991, while Section 3(5) was inserted into the Act by Act 43 of 1993, effective from 23.5.1993. The court referred to the precedent set in Kalpnath Rai v. State (Through CBI) 1998CriLJ369, which clarified that for Section 3(5) to apply, the accused must have been a member of a terrorist gang or organization involved in terrorist acts after 23.5.1993. Since the offence occurred before this date, the conviction under Section 3(5) was deemed unsustainable in law. 2. Conviction under Section 3(1) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act: The appellant's conviction under Section 3(1) was also challenged. Section 3(1) of the Act defines a "terrorist act" involving the use of bombs, dynamite, firearms, or other lethal weapons with the intent to overawe the government, strike terror, or alienate any section of the people. The court, referring to the interpretation in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., 1995CriLJ517, found that the ingredients necessary to constitute a "terrorist act" under Section 3(1) were absent in this case. Therefore, the appellant's conviction under Sections 3(1) & (2) of the Act was not tenable in law. 3. Conviction under Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code: The court examined whether the conviction under Section 365 IPC (kidnapping or abducting with intent to secretly and wrongfully confine a person) was maintainable. The prosecution presented six witnesses, including P.W.-1 Bhola Kakati, the victim, who testified that he was taken away by the appellant in an ambassador car, blindfolded, and confined for three days. P.W.-4 Rajib Bhuyan, who was alleged to have driven the car, was declared hostile but confirmed in his examination-in-chief that the car was taken by force on the day of the incident. The court found the evidence of P.W.-1 credible and trustworthy, noting that the appellant's involvement was evident despite the hostile witness. The motive behind the kidnapping was to accuse P.W.-1 of passing information to the army about ULFA, which supported the wrongful confinement claim. The court dismissed the appellant's plea for leniency, emphasizing that human considerations cannot mitigate the severity of crimes that disrupt societal order and violate human rights. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction under Section 365 IPC was upheld with a sentence of 5 years of rigorous imprisonment, reflecting the gravity of the offence.
|
