JUDGMENT

Phukan, J.-This appeal under Section 19 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1989 (for short the TADA) is against the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge (Designated Court), Karimnagar, Andhra Pradesh. By the impugned judgment and order accused-appellants Sheelam Ramesh (A-2) and Samudrala @ Kummari Mallesham @ Rajanna (A-3) were convicted under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 I.P.C., Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Sections 3(2)(i)(ii) and 5 of the TADA.

2. A2, A3 and another Bheemanna @ Bairi Ramchander (A-1) are members of CPI (ML) Peoples War Group (in short PWG). Deceased Ramtenki Chandraiah, Manchikatla Shankar (PW1) and Thota Paul (PW2) were members of the said PWG but they severed their connections with the group since four years prior to occurrence and they were residing at Jagtial for their safety and security, away from their villages.

3. On 30.01.1993 at about 07.00 p.m. deceased, PWs 1 and 2 were sitting as usual in front of Shri Venkateshwara Hair Cutting Saloon near the bus stand of Jagtial. Suddenly A1 and A3 armed with pistol and tapanchas (country made gun) came and fired at the deceased. PW1 escaped and ran to Jagtial police station. Deceased-Ramtenki Chandraiah was hit by gun fire and was injured. He was taken to the Government Hospital, Jagtial where he succumbed to the injuries. Thereafter, accused went away from the place of occurrence on their cycles. PW2 went towards another side. Subsequently, A2 and A3 were apprehended. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 302, 307 read with 34 IPC, Section 7 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Sections 3 and 4 of the TADA. The case of A1 was separated as he was absconding. Eleven witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Seized articles were produced and the court below found both accused - appellants guilty under the aforesaid section except Section 307 I.P.C. and convicted them accordingly.

4. The Trial Court believed the evidence of eye-witnesses PW1 to PW4 and came to the finding that PW1 and PW2 severed their connection with PWG about 4 years prior to the occurrence and they were in the hit list of the above group and this was the motive for causing death of the deceased. The Trial Court also accepted the prosecution version of the story that PW1, 2 and the deceased who were in the hit list of PWG were residing by the side of house of Deputy Superintendent of Police, at Jagtial for their safety. Accepting the evidence of the prosecution, the Trial Court came to the finding that PW 1, PW2 and deceased were in the habit of sitting at Sri Venkateshwara Hair Cutting Saloon. PWs 1 to 4 categorically deposed that all the three accused persons came and fired at deceased and that evidence of PW1 to PW4 could not be shattered in cross-examination. Accepting the above evidence for the prosecution, the Trial Court came to the finding that prosecution could prove the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. against A2 and A3.

5. In view of the clear evidence of PW1 to PW4 that accused were in possession of fire arms and fired at the deceased, the Court held that the charge under Section 27 of the Arms Act has also been proved.

6. The evidence of PW1 to PW4 that the accused persons were armed with the fire arms and caused death of the deceased was sufficient to come to the conclusion that they did so to strike terror in the people of the area. Accordingly, the Court held that charge under Section 3(2)(i)(ii) and Section 5 of TADA was proved by the prosecution.

7. Regarding the charge under Section 307 read with Section 34 I.P.C., the Trial Court held that in absence of statements by PW1 or PW2 or any other eye witnesses that there was an attempt to cause death of PW1 and PW2, the charge could not proved by the prosecution and accordingly acquitted.

8. The first contention raised by the Counsel for the accused-appellants was that there was delay of one hour in filing the First Information