1994 (11) TMI 427 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Conviction under Sections 5 of TADA and 25 of the Arms Act
2. Apprehension and recovery of arms and ammunition
3. Falsely implicated in the case
4. Testimonies of prosecution witnesses
5. Non-examination of Investigating Officer
6. Non-examination of public witnesses

Analysis:

The appellant was convicted under Sections 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) and 25 of the Arms Act. The prosecution's case revolved around the appellant being found with 8 country-made pistols and 31 live cartridges near a bus stand. The police party apprehended him, seized the arms, and filed a First Information Report. The investigation led to the submission of a charge sheet against the appellant. The testimonies of Const. Jagpal Singh and Head Const. Ramesh Kumar were crucial in establishing the apprehension and recovery of arms from the appellant.

The appellant pleaded not guilty, claiming false implication by the Investigating Officer. However, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, including Const. Bhim Singh, Head Const. Khush Ram, and Const. Jasbir Singh, corroborated the prosecution's case. The evidence, including the report from the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL), supported the charges under the Arms Act.

The appellant's counsel raised concerns about the non-examination of the Investigating Officer, S.I. Sube Singh. The court held that the prosecution's inability to produce him did not affect the case's integrity, as no adverse inference could be drawn. The defense's contention regarding the absence of public witnesses during the recovery was also addressed. The court found the prosecution witnesses' attempts to secure public witnesses genuine, leading to no adverse inference against the prosecution.

After a thorough review of the evidence and contentions, the court dismissed the appeal. The conviction under TADA and the Arms Act was upheld based on the credible testimonies, the CFSL report, and the lack of substantial impact from the non-examination of key individuals.