On 12.1.1986 in the early hours the Inspector of police, PW 5, on receiving credible information that A 1, who had gone underground, is organising his party to companymit terrorist acts and disruptive activities in a house rented by A 3 at Burhanpuram locality, raided the premises.
The learned Designated Judge accepting the evidence of PWs 1, 3 and 5 reached the companyclusion that during the raid the police recovered the fire arms and explosive substance from the possession of the appellants.
During the investigation it was established that the premises was taken on lease by A 3 and the other four accused A 1, A 2 and A 4 and A 5 were residing therein.
After obtaining the sanction from the District Collector, under Section 8 of the Explosive Substances Act and Section 25 1 a of the Indian Arms Act, the charge sheet was laid.
Observing that the appellants have been surrounded by the police party, A 1 to A 5, who were in the house, hurled a bomb with a view to kill the police.
A l was in possession of loaded revolver, A 2 was in possession of one hand grenade, A 3 to A 5 were in possession of companyntry made bombs.
A l is also companyvicted and sentenced to two years imprisonment for the offences under Section 25 1 a of the Indian Arms Act.
Then PW 5 gave a warning and the accused surrendered and from them several arms and other explosives were recovered.
This appeal is filed under Section 16 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1985 for short Tata against the judgment of the Designated Court, Khammam.
The evidence for the prosecution mainly companysists of the persons who companyducted the raid namely PW 1 and PW 5, PW 2 the owner of the premises, having supported the prosecution in his earlier statement, turned hostile.
The accused when examined under Section 313 denied the case.
The charges under the above Sections were framed and in support of its case the prosecution examined PW 1 to PW 6.
The First Information Report was lodged and a case was duly registered in the above said offences.
PW 3 and PW 4 are the other material witnesses.
Punchanama was duly prepared in the presence of panch witnesses.
These appellants along with another accused A 3 were tried for the above said offence.
The prosecution case is as follows.
and they were involved in number of cases.
