Back
1998 Supreme(SC) 241
Supreme Court of India
G.T. NANAVATI & S.P. KURDUKAR
Jasbir Singh
Versus
State of Punjab
Criminal Appeal No. 1986 of 1997
Decided on: 19-02-1998
The lack of marking and sealing of seized items can raise doubts about their identity and impact the prosecution's ability to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Headnote:
Seizure - Lack of Marking and Sealing - The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the weapon and cartridges seized from the appellant due to the lack of marking and sealing, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 5 of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 and Section 25 of the Arms Act based on the recovery of a pistol and live cartridges from him. However, the prosecution evidence did not establish the identity of the seized items.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the lack of marking and sealing of the seized items by the police raised doubts about their identity, and as a result, the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant of all charges.
Issues: The key issue was the failure of the prosecution to establish the identity of the seized weapon and cartridges due to the lack of marking and sealing.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of marking and sealing of the seized items, which created reasonable doubt about their identity and ultimately led to the acquittal of the appellant.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant of all charges due to the prosecution's failure to establish the identity of the seized items.
Judgment
G.T. Nanavati, J.
1. The appellant has been convicted under Section 5 of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 and Section 25 of the Arms Act, by the Court of Additional Judge, Designated Court, Jalandhar in T.D. Sessions Case No. 9 of 1995.
2. What has been held proved against the appellant is that on 5.1.1985 at above 7.30 P.M., when he was apprehended and searched by the police, he was found in possession of one mouser .30 bore and 7 live cartridges.
3. What is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the prosecution evidence itself shows that the pistol and the cartridges alleged to have been recovered from the appellant did not have any number or some distinctive mark on them and after their seizure by the police they were not sealed. Thus the identity of the weapon and the cartridges seized and the weapon and cartridges produced before the court was not established by the prosecution. Having gone through the evidence, we find that the contention raised on behalf of the appellant is correct and, therefore, deserves to be accepted. The pistol and the cartridges did not have any mark or any number on them and after seizing the same police had not thought it fit to wrap them and apply a seal over them. No explanation in that behalf was given by the prosecution witnesses. This aspect was not considered by the trial court. As the identity of the incriminating articles has not been established by the prosecution, we allow this appeal, set aside the conviction of the appellant both under Section 5 of the TADA Act and 25 of the Arms Act and acquit him of all the charges levelled against him.
Appeal allowed.
