The court emphasized the admissibility of identification of the accused for the first time in court, the reliance on the sole testimony of a witness, and the consideration of aggravating and mitigating circumstances in sentencing.

Judgment

Y. K. Sabharwal, J.

( 1 ) THE challenge in these appeals is to the conviction of the appellants in relation to killings in occurrence which took place on 9th April, 1993. On Police receiving information about the place of hiding of notorious criminal Veerappan and his gang, a Police party headed by Superintendent of police. K. Gopalakrishnan (PW 97), on 9th april, 1993, proceeded to nab them. The party comprising of police personnel, forester watchers and informants went in two buses. As a result of blasting of land mines that had been laid, the bus which was in front exploded. The explosion resulted in injuries to many and death of 22 persons. The incident took place at about 11. 00 a. m. For treatment, the injured were shifted to hospital by transporting them in the second bus. After the explosion of the land mines, there were exchange of fire also. The fir was recorded at 2. 45 p. m. on the date of the occurrence. The case was filed against 121 persons, 50 persons were arrested and prosecuted. The trial resulted in conviction of the appellants who are four in number. The first appellant is Simon (accused No. 18), second appellant is Gnana Prakash (accused No. 30), the third is Madhiah (accused No. 31) and the fourth is Bilavendra (accused No. 32 ). The remaining accused have been acquitted.

( 2 ) THE Special Judge, TADA Court, mysore, by the impugned judgment and order, has convicted the appellants for offence under sections 3,4, 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (for short the tada Act), Section 143,148, 307, 302, 332, 333, 324,120 (B) and 149 Indian Penal Code. Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act and section 25 of the Indian Arms Act. In respect of the main offences, the appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigourous imprisonment for life besides fine and further imprisonment in default of payment of fine. The lesser punishment has been inflicted for offences under the Indian Arms Act and Explosive Substances act.

( 3 ) THESE appeals have been filed under section 19 of the TADA Act. The prosecution to prove the case against the appellants has examined a large number of witnesses and has produced various documents. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

( 4 ) HAVING regard to the evidence produced, the occurrence, its time and place and the presence of the witnesses at the place of occurrence as per case of the prosecution can neither be questioned nor has it been questioned by counsel for the appellants. These facts have been fully established. The main question that has been raised on behalf of the appellants by their learned counsel is about the identity and presence of the appellants at the place of occurrence. It has been vehemently contended that the prosecution has not been able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants were present at the place of occurrence and were involved in the crime.

( 5 ) THE FIR was recorded on the information of M. Ashok Kumar (PW45) who was working in the Judge Patrol as Inspector of police in the task force of Tamil Nadu for nabbing Veerappan and his men. He was travelling in the second bus which was at a distance of about 100 to 150 ft. from the first bus. PW 45 has deposed about the explosion of the first bus as a result of land mine blast, the attempt to chase Veerappan and his gang and opening of fire towards them. Number of persons who were travelling in the second bus are prosecution witnesses who have identified the appellants apart from those persons from the first bus who received injuries but were lucky to survive.

( 6 ) THE most important witness on whose testimony the result of these appeals hinge to a large extent is PW 97 - an occupant of the first bus and one of few fortunate to survive. The prosecution heavily relies upon the testimony of PW97. The trial Judge has believed the testimony of PW 97. Learned counsel for the appellants, however, contends that it is not safe