ORDER : Dr. A.S. Anand, J. - On 21-7-1991 SI Charan Dass, PW 4 along with ASI Sukhminder Singh, PW 1 and Constable Mewa Singh, PW 3 and some other police officials were present at Chowk Chatiwind. A secret information was received by the police party to the effect that some persons were demanding ransom by writing threatening letters and were operating in the area of Gurdwara Babeksar. At about 10.15 a.m. Mewa Singh, Constable, PW 3 was sent to Gurdwara Babeksar with a bag. Charan Dass, PW 4 and Sukhminder Singh, PW 1, who were in uniform remained at some distance along with some other police officials. At about 11.00 a.m. three Sikh youths came from Gurdwara Babeksar and demanded money from Mewa Singh whereupon Mewa Singh, PW 3 caught hold of one of those persons, who disclosed his name to be Harjit Singh @ Jeeta. The other members of the police party also reached the spot. One, out of the three Sikh youths, Vijay Pal Singh, then fired at Mewa Singh, PW 3 and ran away. Mewa Singh received a firearm injury on his right shoulder. Vijay Pal Singh is reported to be absconding till date. Upon search being conducted of the persons of the other two accused, a photocopy of the poster (letter) was recovered from the right pocket of the pants of Harjit Singh and a photocopy of another poster (letter) was recovered from Gurdev Singh. Both Harjit Singh and Gurdev Singh were apprehended at the spot. SI Charan Dass, PW 4, lodged a first information report at Police Station ?B? Division, Amritsar. After investigation of the case the two appellants along with Vijay Pal Singh, the absconding co-accused, were sent up for trial to face charges under Sections 307/34 Indian Penal Code; Sections 387/511 Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4/5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "TADA"). 2. At the trial the injury of Mewa Singh, PW 3, was certified by Dr Sukhwinder Singh, PW 2, who had medically examined him on 21-7-1991 at about 6.05 p.m. The prosecution also examined PW 1, PW 3 and PW 4 at the trial to connect the accused with the crime. The learned Additional Judge of the Designated Court, Amritsar, convicted the appellants for an offence under Sections 307/34 Indian Penal Code and sentenced each one of them to 10 years? The learned Additional Judge of the Designated Court, Amritsar, convicted the appellants for an offence under Sections 307/34 Indian Penal Code and sentenced each one of them to 10 years? rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 500 each and in default to undergo two months? rigorous imprisonment. They were also convicted for an offence under Sections 387/511 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo five years? rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 200 each and in default one month?s rigorous imprisonment. Both the appellants were also convicted for an offence under Section 3 TADA and sentenced to undergo five years? rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 200 each and in default to undergo one month?s rigorous imprisonment. 3. Through this appeal under Section 19 of TADA the appellants have questioned their conviction and sentence. 4. We have gone through the evidence on the record and heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. We shall first consider the conviction of the appellants recorded for an offence under Section 3 TADA. 6. The learned Additional Judge of the Designated Court on 3-2-1992 framed the charges against the appellants and charge thirdly reads as follows: "Thirdly.? That on the same date, time and place you used to commit extortion from the public and on 21-7-1991 at Gurdwara Babeksar, Amritsar, you both along with Vijay Pal attempted to commit extortion from Mewa Singh and thus thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 3 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act and within my cognizance." 7. In respect of the first part of the charge no evidence was led by the prosecution and so far as the second part of the charge is concerned, it does not satisfy the ingredients of Section 3(1) TADA. In Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, (1994) 4 SCC 602 this Court analysed Section 3 of TADA and observed: (SCC p. 617, para 5) "5. In Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, (1994) 4 SCC 602 this Court analysed Section 3 of TADA and observed: (SCC p. 617, para 5) "5. Section 3 when analysed would show that whoever with intent (i) to overawe the Government as by law established; or (ii) to strike terror in the people or any section of the people; or (iii) to alienate any section of the people; or (iv) to adversely affect the harmony amongst different sections of the people, does any act or things by using (a) bombs or dynamite, or (b) other explosive substances, or (c) inflammable substances, or (d) firearms, or (e) other lethal weapons, or (f) poisonous or noxious gases or other chemicals, or (g) any other substances (whether biological or otherwise) of a hazardous nature in such a manner as to cause or as is likely to cause (i) death, or (ii) injuries to any person or persons, (iii) loss of or damage to or destruction of property, or (iv) disruption of any supplies or services essential to the life of the community, or (v) detains any person and threatens to kill or injure such person in order to compel the Government or any other person to do or abstain from doing any act, commits a ?terrorist act? punishable under Section 3 of TADA." 8. Neither the charge as framed nor the evidence led at the trial satisfies the ingredients of Section 3(1) of TADA. The submission of learned counsel for the State that the recovery of the photocopies of the poster Ext. PB from Harjit Singh and Ext. PC from Gurdev Singh would bring the case against the appellants under Section 3 of TADA, needs a notice only to be rejected. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the photocopy of poster Ext. PB and the photocopy of poster Ext. PC were recovered from the pockets of the appellants as alleged there is nothing on the record to show that any similar letter had been sent by the appellants to any member of the public, as no one from the public has been examined at the trial to show that he had in fact received a copy of the poster similar to Ext. PB or PC. The authorship of Ext. PB and Ext. PC has also not been fastened on the appellants by the prosecution. PB or PC. The authorship of Ext. PB and Ext. PC has also not been fastened on the appellants by the prosecution. Mere recovery of the photocopies of some poster, therefore, can by no stretch of imagination attract the provisions of Section 3 of TADA. It also deserves to be noticed that the appellants were not charged for being in possession of Ext. PB and Ext. PC by the Designated Court. We are, therefore, of the opinion that on the material available on the record the conviction and sentence of the appellants for an offence under Section 3(1) of TADA is not at all made out and their conviction and sentence for the said offence cannot be sustained. 9. Coming now to the conviction for offences under Sections 307/34 Indian Penal Code and Sections 387/511 Indian Penal Code. The evidence of PW 3, Mewa Singh, Constable, who was injured at the occurrence when considered along with the medical evidence and the statement of ASI Sukhminder Singh, PW 1, unmistakably shows that the injury was received by Mewa Singh, PW 3, in the manner deposed to by him. Despite lengthy cross-examination of PW 1 and PW 3 nothing has been brought on the record which may in any way create doubt about the reliability of evidence of Mewa Singh, PW 3 or of ASI Sukhminder Singh, PW 1. Their evidence is clear, cogent and consistent. They had no reason to falsely implicate either of the appellants. The evidence of Mewa Singh, PW 3, and ASI Sukhminder Singh, PW 1 has received ample corroboration from the testimony of Charan Dass, SHO, PW 4, who also was admittedly present at the place of occurrence. His evidence has also remained unshattered in the cross-examination and to us, he appears to be a truthful witness. Thus from the evidence of PW 1, PW 3 and PW 4, the involvement of the appellants along with the absconding co-accused Vijay Pal Singh in the occurrence on 21-7-1991 at about 11.00 a.m. near Gurdwara Babeksar where Constable Mewa Singh PW 3 was injured stands amply established. The minor contradictions and omissions which were pointed out in the evidence of PW 1, PW 3 and PW 4 were rightly discarded as of no consequence by the Designated Court. The minor contradictions and omissions which were pointed out in the evidence of PW 1, PW 3 and PW 4 were rightly discarded as of no consequence by the Designated Court. Learned counsel for the appellants has also not been able to point out any infirmity in the evidence of PW 1 to PW 4. The prosecution has in our opinion brought home the guilt to both the appellants and the Designated Court was, therefore, right in convicting both of them for offences under Sections 307/34 and 387/511 Indian Penal Code, and we accordingly uphold their convictions for the said offences. 10. We now come to the question of sentence. 11. The injury which was received by Mewa Singh, PW 3, on his shoulder has been ascribed by the prosecution to Vijay Pal Singh, the absconding co-accused. So far as the appellants are concerned, their complicity has been brought in only with the aid of Section 34 Indian Penal Code insofar as the offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code is concerned. Similarly, they are only alleged to have attempted to commit the offence under Section 387 Indian Penal Code. In our opinion the sentence of 10 years? rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Sections 307/34 Indian Penal Code and 5 years? RI for the offence under Sections 387/511 Indian Penal Code appears to be excessive. While maintaining the conviction of the appellants for the offence under Sections 307/34 Indian Penal Code we reduce the period of sentence of imprisonment to four years? rigorous imprisonment while maintaining the sentence of fine and the imprisonment in default thereof. So far as the offence under Sections 387/511 Indian Penal Code is concerned, we reduce the substantive sentence to four years? rigorous imprisonment while maintaining the sentence of fine and the imprisonment in default thereof. Both the substantive sentences are, however, directed to run concurrently. 12. As a result, the conviction and sentence of the appellants for the offence under Section 3(1) TADA is set aside and while the conviction of the appellants for offences under Sections 307/34 Indian Penal Code and Sections 387/511 Indian Penal Code is maintained, the sentence is reduced to a period of 4 years? rigorous imprisonment on each count but we maintain the sentence of fine and the imprisonment in default of payment of fine as recorded by the trial court on each count. 13. rigorous imprisonment on each count but we maintain the sentence of fine and the imprisonment in default of payment of fine as recorded by the trial court on each count. 13. With the aforesaid modification the appeal partly succeeds and is disposed of. Appeal partly succeeded.