The Hindu : National : “Shooting in self-defence, retaliation not terror act”

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Sunday, Feb 24, 2008
ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version

National

National

“Shooting in self-defence, retaliation not terror act”

J. Venkatesan

If intent is to cause terror, crime will attract TADA: court

“Designated courts convicting accused Under TADA even when there is no iota of evidence”
2 alleged ULFA militants acquitted

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has held that indiscriminate shooting by a person in self-defence or in retaliation will not amount to a terrorist act under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act.

Acquitting two alleged ULFA militants, a Bench of Justices P.P. Naolekar and P. Sathasivam said on Friday: “A person cannot be convicted under the TADA Act even if he or she goes on an indiscriminate shooting spree, killing several people.”

“Such an indiscriminate shooting spree would necessarily create terror and panic among the people but it is not necessary that the action would invite application of the TADA Act provisions. If it was not committed with the requisite intention as contemplated by the Section, the offence would not attract Section 3(1) of the TADA Act.”

Writing the judgment, Justice Sathasivam said: “If it is only as a consequence of the criminal act that fear, terror or/and panic is caused but the intention of committing the particular crime cannot be said to be the one strictly envisaged by Section 3(1), it would be impermissible to try or convict and punish an accused under the TADA Act.”

The commission of the crime with intent to achieve the result as envisaged by the Section, and not merely where the consequence of the crime created that result, would attract the provisions of Section 3(1). “On the other hand, if a crime was committed with the intention to cause terror or panic or to alienate a section of the people or to disturb harmony, etc, it would attract TADA Act provisions even if one person is killed.” The provision would be attracted if the crime was committed to overawe the government.

“Of late, we have come across some cases where designated courts have chargesheeted and/or convicted an accused person under the TADA Act even though there is not even an iota of evidence from which it could be inferred even prima facie, let alone conclusively, that the crime was committed with the intention as contemplated by the provisions of the Act.”

In the instant case, Pulin Das alias Panna Coach and Mahendra Saikia alias Dilip Saikia were booked under the TADA Act by the Assam police, who claimed that the two militants were caught after an exchange of fire. A designated court sentenced them to five-year imprisonment.

Allowing their appeal against the verdict, the Bench said the prosecution failed to adduce any evidence that the accused belonged to the United Liberation Front of Asom or had contributed to its activities in any manner.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

National