ORDER

1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.

2. The appellant Mohd. Maqbool Tantray along with 17 others was tried for offences punishable under Sections 302/392/364 etc. of the Ranbir Penal Code [for short `the RPC'] and Section 3(1) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 [hereinafter referred to as `the TADA'] for being involved in the abduction and murder of former MLA Mir Mustafa on the 25th March, 1990. Eleven of the accused were discharged on the statement made by the Public Prosecutor, three died during the pendency of the trial and one absconded and three were brought to trial including the appellant. In the trial three co-accused of the appellant herein were acquitted but the court relying on the evidence of various prosecution witnesses and in particular on the confessional statement given by the appellant to the SSP Mr. A.K. Suri, convicted him for offences punishable under Section 364 read with Section 120B of the RPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to undergo imprisonment for six months and under Section 3(2)(ii) of TADA to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 14 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for a period of one year, both the sentences to run concurrently. The present appeal has been filed impugning the judgment of the trial court as the appeal under TADA lies directly to the Supreme Court.

3. Mr. Agrawala, the learned counsel for the appellant has not argued the matter on merits but has pointed out that in view of the above facts more particularly that eleven out of 18 accused had been discharged and the two co-accused of the appellant herein had been acquitted vide the impugned judgment and the additional fact that the trial had continued for almost twenty years and that the appellant had also undergone almost 11+ years of the sentence and that he had made a confession before the SSP which showed his remorse it was appropriate that the sentence be reduced to that already undergone.

4. For the proposition that in a case of a confession made by a remorseful respondent convict some leniency in the sentence was called for the learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Gurdeep Singh alias Deep v. State (Delhi Admn.) (2000) 1 SCC 498. The learned Solicitor General has, however, pointed out that the appellant was one of the prime movers in the incident which had led to the death of Mir Mustafa and as Section 2 of TADA provided for a life sentence, the appellant had already been dealt with in a lenient way and no further latitude should be shown to him. 5. It is indeed true that a conviction under the TADA is a very serious matter and calls for a deterrent punishment. At the same time, the facts of each case cannot be ignored. We see that all the co-accused of the appellant have either been acquitted or have not been brought to trial. We also see from the record that the appellant has expressed his regrets for the circumstance which had ultimately led to the murder of Mir Mustafa. The trial court has given a positive finding that the appellant was only involved with the abduction part and had nothing to do with the murder of the MLA. We also see from the record that appellant has undergone more than 11+ years of the sentence after facing protracted a trial spread over almost 20 years. We have also been told by Mr. Agrawal that he had been released on bail for a period of 1+ years and during this period his conduct and behaviour had remained exemplary. We also notice that in Gurdip Singh's case (supra) this Court observed as under:

"25. Before concluding we would like to record our conscientious feeling for the consideration by the legislature, if it deem fit ad proper. Punishment to an accused in criminal jurisprudence is not merely to punish the wrongdoer but also to strike a warning to those who a