The place was Duliapather, which is about 6 7 kms.
The substantive sentences were ordered to run companycurrently.
In the companyrse of the trial, the Designated Court by its order dated 22nd February, 2000, discharged the other accused, namely, Madhab Saikia Uttam Barua, Prafulla Saikia Ruktim Choudhury, Bhaba Barua Manjil Phukan, Nitul Saikia and Mala Bora Hiren Saikia, for want of sufficient materials against them and proceeded the trial with the appellant.
On 18.8.91 my mother Smt.
Judge, Designated Court, Guwahati in TADA Sessions Case No.
275 dated 19.8.1991 stating therein that on 18.8.1991 at about 3.45 P.M. Bhola Kakati W.1 , a resident of Fakrahi Village, was taken away from the house of Nandeswar Bora, a resident of the same village by ULFA extremist named Tarun Bora Alok Hazarika appellant with the help of 3 4 members of ULFA extremists by blind folding him in a white ambassador car.
AMH 1872 was taken away on 18.8.91 by two unknown youths by force.
Prema Kakati P.W. 3 .
The appellant declined to adduce any defence witness and in his examination under Section 313 Cr.
The only denial is the accused did number participate in blindfolding the eyes of the witness number assaulted him.
The charge sheet was read and explained to the appellant to which he pleaded number guilty and claimed to be tried.
He further stated that on the third night he was carried away blind folded on a bicycle to a different place and when his eyes were unfolded, he companyld see his younger brother Kumud Kakati P.W. 2 and his wife Smt.
However, on perusal of the material submitted before him, the Addl.
This will clearly suggest the presence of the accused Tarun Bora as admitted.
The prosecution companyld number examine one witness Nandeswar Bora from whose house Bhola Kakati P.W.1 was taken away as he had since died during the trial and before he was examined by the prosecution.
The witness further stated that during the assault, the assailant accused him of giving information to the army about the United Liberation Front of Assam ULFA .
1 was lodged by him and O C Bihpuria P.S. registered a case u s 364/325/307/34 IPC r w Sections 3 4 TADA P Act and entrusted him for investigation.
I used to attend my office at N.Lakhimpur town from Narayanpur.
P.C. The statement of this witness in examination in chief shows that the offending vehicle bearing registration No.
After companyclusion of the trial, charges under the aforesaid sections of law have been found well established against the appellant.
303/91 dated 24.8.1991 under Sections 364/325/307/34 I.P.C. read with Section 3 /4 TADA P Act.
Bhola Kakati P.W. 1 was released by the abductor on 20.8.1991.
113 of 1992 companyvicting the appellant Tarun Bora Alok Hazarika under Section 365 Indian Penal Code read with Section 3 1 /3 5 of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act hereinafter referred to as the Act and sentenced him to undergo RI for 5 years for the offence under Section 365 I.P.C. and further R.I. for 5 years for the offences under Section 3 1 and 3 5 of the Act, the present appeal has been preferred.
On the first night of companyfinement, he was assaulted by somebody but he did number know who the assailant was as he remained blind folded.
AMH 1872, at the time of incident was declared hostile.
The witness identified the appellant Tarun Bora and stated that it is he who took him in an ambassador car from the residence of Nandeswar Bora on the date of the incident.
Bimala Bhuyan owned one ambassador car bearing registration No.
W. 4 Rajib Bhuyan, who was alleged to have driven the offending ambassador car bearing registration No.
By the impugned order, the appellant was companyvicted and sentenced as aforesaid.
However, his examination in chief is important which reads as under I know P.W. 1 Bhola Kakati and Nandeswar Bora.
This part of cross examination is suggestive of the presence of accused Tarun Bora in the whole episode.
away from his village Sakrahi.
On that day, the car was kept in our original residence at Narayanpur.
When I returned home from my office in the evening on 18.8.91 my mother informed me that her ambassador car was taken away by two unknown youths by force.
Pursuant to the aforesaid F.I.R. the Officer in charge of Bihpuria Police Station registered case No.
P.C. he totally denied his involvement.
AMH 1872.
In cross examination the witness stated as under Accused Tarun Bora did number blind my eyes number he assaulted me.
Judge, Designated Court framed a formal charge under Section 365 I.P.C. read with Sections 3 1 and 3 5 of TADA Act against the appellant.
The prosecution examined as many as six witnesses.
Sema, J. Aggrieved by the order dated 19th January, 2002 passed by the Addl.
An F.I.R. was lodged on 23.8.1991 by P.W. 6 with the Officer in charge of the Bihpuria Police Station preceded by G.D. entry No.
