Appellant Sukhchain Singh is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under the two companynts while appellant Jarnail Singh was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four years on the first companynt and three years on the second companynt.
The three appellants were tried by the Designated Court at Ajmer for offence under TADA and after a long drawn out trial companyvicted them under Section 3 3 and also under Section 4 1 of TADA.
It is admitted by the prosecution that numbere of the appellants was in possession of any weapon, much less any lethal weapon, specified in Section 3 1 of TADA.
Appellant Hakim Singh has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years on the first companynt and three years under second companynt.
The Fourth accused Mit Singh was found number guilty of any offence and was acquitted.
Revathy Raghavan, Advocate who was appointed as amicus curiae for the appellants and Shri Sushil Kumar Jain, Standing Counsel for the State of Rajasthan at length.
PW 16 Ram Pal, Station House Officer arrested the three appellants on 29.5.1987.
The gist of the case against the appellants is the following They together pasted wall poster on the night of 19.5.1987 on the wall of one Jugraj Singhs companypound in Village Dhanor Ganganagar District, Rajasthan .
On the strength of the information elicited from them companyies of the wall posters were recovered from the places shown by them.
All the articles which the appellants were alleged to have possessed were wall posters and the other materials needed for pasting them on the walls.
The prosecution examined 16 witnesses out of which a number of witnesses turned hostile.
They were charge sheeted for the aforesaid offences on companypletion of the investigation.
The appellants denied having participated in the activities alleged by the prosecution, when they were examined under Section 313 of the CrPC.
The Judge of the Designated Court, by a very lengthy judgment entered upon findings against the appellants on the disputed points and companyvicted them and sentenced them as aforesaid.
We heard Smt.
The defence also examined a number of witnesses.
