State of Rajasthan - Respondent
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 Sections 3(3) and 4(1) Appeal against conviction - Appellant/accused found guilty of offence under TADA and sentenced to 5 years RI - Evidence led by prosecution to connect him with the crime had amply established - Case against him had been proved beyond reasonable doubt - Conviction of accused hence, upheld. [Para 3]ORDER
A.S. Anand, J. - Appellant, along with Major Singh, Jagraj Singh and Bhagwan Singh were sent up for trial for offences under sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'TADA') and Sections 3/25 of the Arms Act. Another co-accused Bhagwan Singh S/o Sada Singh had absconded and was not put up for trial along with others. 2. The Trial Court found the appellant, Major Singh and Jagraj Singh guilty of offences under Sections 3(3) and 4(1) of TADA Act. They were acquitted of the charges under Section 25 of the Arms Act and as well as Section 5 of TADA Act. Bhagwan Singh S/o Dhula Singh, co-accused was acquitted of the charges punishable under Section 3(3) of the TADA Act as well as for offences under Sections 5 and 25 of the Arms Act. The appellant was sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment by the Trial Court vide judgment and order dated 11.10.2000. 3. We have been taken through the record by learned counsel for the parties and find that the evidence led by the prosecution to connect the appellant with the crime has been amply established. As a matter of fact, the case has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt insofar as the appellant is concerned. The trial court has properly appreciated the evidence and made no mistsake in so far as application of law to the facts of the case. We are not persuaded to take a view different that the one taken by the trial court. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has already undergone the sentence which was imposed upon him. Learned counsel for the respondent does not dispute this fact and further asserts that the appellant has since been released from custody. We record this statement. 5. After giving the matter our careful consideration, we find that there is no merit in this appeal, which fails and is hereby dismissed. .