1. Conviction under Section 5 of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, following the recovery of a firearm and ammunition. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1995 Supreme(SC) 354
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.N.Ray : R.M.Sahai
Kulwant Singh Alias Kanta, S/o Piara Singh
Versus
State Of Punjab
Case No. : 60 of 1992
Date of Decision : 3/8/95
A conviction under the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, cannot be sustained if the investigation is marred by serious infirmities, specifically the failure to seal recovered weapons and the lack of evidence that recovered ammunition was sent for testing.
Headnote:(A) Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - Section 5 - Recovery of weapon and ammunition - Investigation - Failure to prove that recovered cartridges were sent for testing and lack of evidence regarding the sealing of the recovered pistol at the time of search - Investigation suffers from serious infirmity. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 5 of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, and sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine following the recovery of a pistol and two cartridges. The conviction by the Designated Court was based primarily on the testimony of police witnesses.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the evidence did not establish that the recovered cartridges were sent for testing. Furthermore, there was no material on record to demonstrate that the recovered pistol had been sealed at the time of the search.
Issues: Whether the failure to seal the recovered weapon and the lack of evidence regarding the testing of ammunition constituted a serious infirmity in the investigation sufficient to overturn the conviction.
Ratio Decidendi: An investigation is considered seriously infirm if the prosecution fails to provide evidence that recovered ammunition was sent for testing and fails to prove that the recovered weapon was properly sealed at the time of search, rendering the conviction unsustainable.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Failure to establish that seized cartridges were tested and that the recovered pistol was sealed indicated serious infirmity in the investigation. (Para 3 )
3. A conviction cannot be sustained when the investigation suffers from serious infirmities regarding the sealing and testing of seized weapons and ammunition. (Para 3 )
4. Appeal allowed; conviction set aside, appellant ordered to be released, and fine refunded. (Para 4 )
5. What is the legal impact of failing to prove the sealing of a seized firearm or the testing of seized ammunition?
Such failures constitute serious infirmities in the investigation, which undermine the reliability of the prosecution's evidence and can render a conviction unsustainable, leading to the acquittal of the accused. (Para 3 )
(1) THE appellant was tried and convicted under Section 5 of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000.00 in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months.
(2) THE appellant was arrested on 17/5/1990. a pistol is said to have been recovered from him along with two cartridges. The prosecution examined Sub-Inspector Shamsher Singh, Public Witness 4, and Inspector Jaspal Singh, Public Witness 5, to prove the prosecution case. Their testimony was believed by the Designated Court.
(3) WE have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the State of Punjab. It is not necessary for us to discuss the evidence of Public Witness 4 and Public Witness 5 as from the evidence of Public Witness 2, Sham Sunder, Head Constable and armourer, it is not established that the cartridges were sent to him for testing. And as regards pistol there is no material to show that it was sealed at the time of search. The investigation thus suffered from serious infirmity.
(4) IN these circumstances, the appeal is allowed. In case the appellant is still in jail he shall be released forthwith. The fine, if paid, shall be refunded.
