(1) THIS appeal is under Section 19 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (for short "TADA"). Three appellants herein have been convicted under Section 3(3) of TADA and each of them has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years. We are told that the appellants are languishing in jail and have already completed a substantial portion of the term of imprisonment imposed on them. (2) THE case against them, as put forth by the prosecution, is the following: A posse of police was perambulating through Pulimari Village (Assam) during the night of 18-10-1989/19-10-1989. As they reached a place called Salbari they heard the sound of firing from the house of Kamakhya Basumatary. The police personnel immediately lay down and they also started firing back. They moved forward and encircled the house. Only two women were then available in the house. But they found three persons hiding in the adjoining field besides one person lying with injuries. All the four were caught and the injured person was shifted to the hospital where he succumbed to his injuries on the succeeding day. A khukri was found tied on the waist of one of the three persons caught. Some articles were also seized the description of which is given in the seizure list prepared, but none of them is a firearm. The FIR was lodged on the next day and after investigation charge-sheet was laid for offences under Sections 147, 148, 353 and 307 read with Section 149 IPC. Section 3(3) of TADA was also added therewith. Subsequently the case was sent up to the Special Judge of the Designated Court where the appellants were tried for the offence under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of TADA read with Section 307 IPC. (3) PW 4 seems to be the most important witness, being the Platoon Commander under whom the police party moved forward during the night in question. His evidence shows that when the police party saw some miscreants running helter-skelter in the paddy field the police constables called Kanu Kanta Nath (PW 3) and Fatik Borah (PW 2) fired two rounds each, and while checking up they came across the injured person who was carrying a bow and arrows with him. (4) PW 9 is a Sub-Inspector of Police who also accompanied the patrolling party. He also recorded the evidence of PW 4. (4) PW 9 is a Sub-Inspector of Police who also accompanied the patrolling party. He also recorded the evidence of PW 4. The remaining witnesses were only the police constables who were members of the party. (5) NONE of the witnesses examined by the prosecution has stated that the appellants were carrying any weapon which was to be treated as forbidden under TADA. Nor has any witness even sounded that any of the appellants did any act to strike terror in the people or any section of the people. It may be that the area was prone to militant activities. It could as well be that at the sight of the police, the appellants would have become fear-stricken and they would have fallen down to escape from the operating firearms in the possession of the police party. Since no witness has said that any one of the appellants did any act except lie down on the ground there is no question of considering whether the appellants had committed any terrorist act falling within the purview of Section 3 of TADA. Unfortunately there is not even a whisper in the prosecution evidence that any one of the appellants did anything that could remotely be described as a terrorist act. (6) WE find it very difficult to sustain the conviction of the appellants under Section 3(3) of TADA. We therefore allow this appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence passed on them. We acquit them and direct the jail authorities to release the appellants forthwith unless they are required in any other case.