Retrospective penal application barred as TADA convictions failed, while reliable evidence sustained kidnapping under the IPC.

A penal provision cannot be applied to conduct that occurred before its insertion, so a conviction under Section 3(5) of TADA was unsustainable where the alleged incident pre-dated that provision. The court also held that the ingredients of a terrorist act under Section 3(1) were not proved, as the evidence showed abduction and confinement but did not establish the statutory intent or consequences required by the anti-terror law. By contrast, the kidnapping conviction under Section 365 IPC was sustained because the abducted witness's account remained reliable and was supported by surrounding circumstances, vehicle evidence, and the accused's conduct.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether conviction under Section 3(5) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act could stand when the alleged incident pre-dated insertion of that provision; (ii) Whether the facts proved the ingredients of a terrorist act under Section 3(1) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act; (iii) Whether conviction for kidnapping under Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code was sustainable on the evidence.

Issue (i): Whether conviction under Section 3(5) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act could stand when the alleged incident pre-dated insertion of that provision.

Analysis: The provision under Section 3(5) came into force only after the date of the incident. The governing principle is that the statutory ingredients must coexist after the provision's commencement, and a penal provision cannot be applied to conduct anterior to its insertion.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 3(5) was unsustainable and could not be maintained.

Issue (ii): Whether the facts proved the ingredients of a terrorist act under Section 3(1) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act.

Analysis: A terrorist act under Section 3(1) requires conduct done with the requisite intent to overawe the Government, strike terror, alienate a section of the people, or otherwise satisfy the statutory mischief through the specified means and consequences. On the proved facts, the episode was one of abduction and confinement, but the statutory elements of Section 3(1) were not established.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 3(1) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act was not sustainable.

Issue (iii): Whether conviction for kidnapping under Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code was sustainable on the evidence.

Analysis: The eye-witness account of the abducted witness remained substantially unshaken, was supported by surrounding circumstances, and was reinforced by the evidence relating to the vehicle and the conduct of the accused. The absence of extensive corroboration did not undermine otherwise reliable testimony in the context of the offence proved. The facts disclosed wrongful abduction and confinement with intent connected to the alleged information to the Army about ULFA.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in substance because the TADA convictions were not legally sustainable, but the conviction for kidnapping under the Indian Penal Code was affirmed, leaving the appellant's challenge without merit.

Ratio Decidendi: A penal provision cannot be applied to pre-commencement conduct, and a conviction under the anti-terror law requires strict proof of each statutory ingredient; where those ingredients are absent, the conviction cannot stand, while a reliable witness account may suffice to sustain a kidnapping conviction even without extensive corroboration.

---