1. Possession of unauthorized arms and ammunition in a notified area — Conviction under Section 5, TADA. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1999 Supreme(SC) 1122
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.B.Pattanaik : M.Srinivasan : S.N.Phukan
Sukhdev Singh
Versus
State Of Punjab
Case No. : 746 of 1999
Date of Decision : 9/28/99
Conviction for possession of unauthorized arms cannot be sustained if the seized weapon was not sealed, as the prosecution fails to establish the identity of the evidence produced in court, creating reasonable doubt.
Headnote:(A) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act - Section 5 - Possession of unauthorized arms - Recovery of AK-47 rifle and cartridges - Failure to seal seized weapon - Chain of custody - Absence of ballistic expert's opinion - Conviction based on police testimony without proper sealing of evidence held unsafe - Prosecution failed to establish that the weapon produced in court was the same as the one seized. (Para 1)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 5 of TADA for possession of an AK-47 rifle and cartridges recovered from his house in a notified area. The recovery was made following a police operation where the appellant was apprehended and subsequently led the officers to his residence to recover the arms. The trial court convicted the appellant based on the testimony of police officers, concluding that the prosecution had proved the possession of unauthorized arms beyond reasonable doubt.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the seizing authority admitted to not putting any seal on the recovered rifle and cartridges. Additionally, there was no evidence from a ballistic expert to confirm whether the weapon was in a workable condition, despite the claims of the seizing officer.
Issues: Whether the failure to seal the seized weapon and the absence of a ballistic expert's report entitle the accused to the benefit of doubt regarding the identity and nature of the recovered arms.
Ratio Decidendi: It is highly unsafe to convict an appellant when the seizing authority fails to take the minimum precaution of sealing the weapon of offence upon seizure. In the absence of such sealing, there is no material to establish that the item produced in court is the same as the item seized on the date of occurrence, thereby failing to prove the charge of possession.
Result: Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Lack of sealing of seized weapons and absence of ballistic expert opinion versus reliability of police testimony in turmoil-hit areas. (Para 1 )
3. Failure to seal the weapon of offence creates uncertainty regarding the identity of the evidence produced in court. (Para 1 )
4. Conviction for possession of arms is unsafe where the seizing authority fails to take minimum precautions, such as sealing the weapon. (Para 1 )
5. Conviction and sentence set aside — Appeal allowed — Appellant set at liberty. (Para 1 , 2 )
6. What is the legal impact of failing to seal a seized weapon of offence?
It is considered highly unsafe to convict an accused when the seizing authority fails to take the minimum precaution of sealing the weapon, as the prosecution cannot establish that the item produced in court is the same as the one seized. (Para 1 )
7. Is the testimony of a seizing officer regarding the working condition of a weapon sufficient for conviction if the weapon was not sealed?
No, even if the seizing officer testifies that the weapon is in working condition, a conviction is unsafe if the weapon was not sealed, as the identity of the evidence cannot be established. (Para 1 )
8. Can a conviction be based solely on police testimony if independent witnesses are unavailable due to regional turmoil?
While police testimony may be considered when independent witnesses are unavailable due to turmoil, such testimony is insufficient to sustain a conviction if basic evidentiary precautions, such as sealing the seized weapon, are ignored. (Para 1 )
(1) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of the Designated Court, Ferozepur at Bhatinda convicting the appellant under Section 5 of TADA and sentencing him to imprisonment for 5 years and a fine of Rs 1000, in default further to undergo RI for 6 months, on the allegation that he was found in possession of arms and ammunition specified in columns 2 and 3 Category 1 of Schedule I to the Arms Rule inasmuch as he gave recovery of one AK-47 rifle and several cartridges from his house. The prosecution case in a nutshell is that on 6-6-1992 at 9.30 a.m. Village Lehra was cordoned off on the secret information that two terrorists had concealed themselves and were about to escape. While the officers concerned cordoned the entire village, one of the suspects took poison and committed suicide but the present appellant was caught redhanded. This appellant then took the investigating officer along with other police people to his own house, opened the same with his key and gave recovery of one AK-47 assault rifle in a box and several cartridges. According to his statement the said rifle had been given by him, (sic) the other person who had committed suicide. The statement of the appellant was reduced to writing Ex. PA and the recovery of the rifle as well as the cartridges were recorded in memo of recovery (Ex. PB). The learned Designated Judge considered the relevant materials and came to the conclusion that the prosecution case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt so far as the possession of the unauthorised arms is concerned and accordingly convicted the appellant under Section 5 of TADA. The place from where the alleged recovery was made, is a notified area, is not disputed before us. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, contended that the rifle as well as the cartridges were not sealed at the time of seizure and therefore the prosecution has not been able to establish whether what was seized on the date of seizure is the same which is now being produced in court to hold the appellant guilty of the offence. The learned counsel also further submitted that the rifle in question had not been sent to any ballistic expert for his opinion as to whether it was in a workable condition and this infirmity on the part of the prosecution entitles the accused to get the benefit of doubt. Mr Dutta appearing for the State, on the other hand, contended that in those days the entire State of Punjab was in turmoil so much so no independent witness was available in spite of best efforts and under the circumstances there is no reason to disbelieve the prosecution witnesses, who are police officers, and if they are believed the seizure must be held to be established and further it must be held that the appellant was in possession of the alleged AK-47 rifle. To appreciate the correctness of the rival submission we have been taken through the evidence of the witness PW 4, who was the SHO, and he had categorically admitted that on recovery of the AK-47 rifle and arms from the house of the accused he had not put any seal on the same. He has also further stated that he did not remember whether the rifle had been sent to any ballistic expert for his opinion though he himself had examined the weapon in question and was of the opinion that it was in perfect working condition. Even if we accept the statement of the SHO, PW 4 to be correct, but it would be highly unsafe to convict the appellant on the same, particularly when the seizing authority has not taken the minimum precaution of sealing the weapon of offence, on its being seized. There is not even an iota of material produced by the prosecution to establish that what was seized on the date of occurrence is the same which is being produced in the case for establishing the charge under Section 5 of TADA. In the aforesaid premises, we are persuaded to accept the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecution has not been able to establish the possession of the recov
