IMPORTANT POINT
Principles enunciated with regard to the meaning of "Confession" under the Evidence Act shall also apply to a "Confession" made under the Terrorist & Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act & such confessional statement, if challenged, has to be shown, before a conviction can be based upon it, to have been made volunatrily & that it was truthful.

JUDGMENT

S. Saghir Ahmad, J.-HALLUCINATION, as a disease, is an apparent perception without any corresponding external object. It is defined as any of numerous sensations, auditory, visual or tactile, experienced without external stimulus and caused by mental derangement or intoxication. It may occur with relation to any of the special senses, namely, hearing sounds or seeing things that do not exist.

2. The prosecution in this case presents before us a story of Hallucination where a dead person is seen by the eye-witnesses to have come armed with a gun, fired the gun at one of the witnesses who was injured and then was seen running away with other people including the appellant, towards another village never to be found again. The appellant was seen in the company of that dead person, shoulder to shoulder, armed with a gun and triggering it to keep pace with the activities of his companion, the dead.

3. Prosecution unfolds its story by ushering us into an era when the Punjab was writhing in pain of militancy.

4. Village Pipaltha, P.S. Garhi, Distt. Jind, where Om Prakash (deceased) lived with his three sons, Dharam Pal (P.W. 10), Surinder (P.W.11) and Suresh (P.W.12) (fourth is not material) was targetted by terrorists resulting in the death of Om Prakash and gunshot injuries to his son, Suresh.

5. The appellant was prosecuted and tried by the Additional Judge (Designated Court, Rohtak at Jind) and convicted for offences u/s 302/34 IPC read with Section 3(2) of the Terrorist a Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (for short, the Act ) with a fine of Rs. 200/- or else further rigorous imprisonment for one year; under Section 452/34 IPC (Sentence : 3 years R.I. with a fine of Rs. 100/- or else 3 months further R.I.); under Section 307/34 IPC (Sentence : 7 years R.I.); and under Section 394/34 IPC (Sentence : 10 years R.I. with a fine of Rs. 200/- or else R.I. for one year).

6. House of Om Prakash which also contained a shop at which Dharam Pal and Surinder used to sit, was located almost in the centre of the village in a busy locality. A short distance away was another shop at which Suresh and his brother, the fourth son of Om Prakash, used to sit.

7. On 18.11.1991 at about 6.30 P.M. while Om Prakash was at the shop of his two sons, Dharam Pal and Surinder, two young Sikhs armed with small guns, came and asked Om Prakash to hand over his revolver but Om Prakash who did not possess a revolver offered his 12 bore gun. The two Sikh youths, at the point of gun, brought all the three, namely, Om Prakash, Dharam Pal and Surinder on the street where a group of three other young Sikhs were standing on the right side of the shop while another group of three or four Sikh youths, which also included the appellant, was standing in front of their shop. All of them were holding small guns and were between the age group of 25-30 years. One of the two Sikh youths, brought out a Hero-Honda Motor Cycle from the shop and wanted Om Prakash to sit on the Motor Cycle but Om Prakash refused and while trying to run inside the shop, he was fired upon. He attempted to enter the room on the rear of the shop but all the Sikh youths present there started firing indiscriminately as a result of which he received injuries on various parts of his body. While Dharam Pal and Surinder managed to escape, Suresh, who was at the other shop, came running to help them but was injured in the firing. All the Sikh youths then went away towards village Rewar .

8. Om Prakash was taken to a hospital at Narwana where he was declared dead while Suresh, who was medically examined there, was admitted for treatment.

9. After due investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted only against the appellant who was tried and ultimately convicted as aforesaid.

10. The appellant, from the very beginning, had denied the prosecution story and had contended that he had been falsely implicated on account of enmity as civil and criminal cases were pending even on the date of incident bet