1995 (2) TMI 445 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved: Appeal against judgment u/s 6(1) of TADA and Section 25 of Arms Act based on recovery of pistol and cartridges without valid license, discrepancies in witness depositions, lack of independent witness corroboration, and fairness of investigation process.

Issue 1 - Recovery of Pistol and Cartridges:
The appellant was tried u/s 6(1) of TADA and Section 25 of Arms Act based on the recovery of a country-made pistol and live cartridges from his person without a valid license. The police party intercepted the accused on a village road and recovered the items, leading to the initiation of the case.

Issue 2 - Discrepancies in Witness Depositions:
Discrepancies arose in the witness depositions regarding the location of recovery of the pistol and the number of cartridges found on the accused. While PW-2 stated the pistol was recovered from the right side, PW-3 mentioned the left side, and there was a discrepancy in the number of cartridges recovered. The judge, however, deemed these discrepancies immaterial and upheld the police personnel's depositions.

Issue 3 - Lack of Independent Witness Corroboration:
The defense contended that no independent witnesses were examined to corroborate the prosecution's case, despite the presence of villagers during the apprehension of the accused. The defense argued that the rule of prudence necessitates corroboration by independent witnesses to enhance the prosecution's credibility.

Issue 4 - Fairness of Investigation Process:
A disturbing feature noted was that the head constable who arrested the accused also initiated the case, conducted the investigation, and examined witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. This raised concerns about the fairness and impartiality of the investigation process, as the complainant should not have been involved in the investigation.

Judgment:
After considering the discrepancies in witness depositions, lack of independent witness corroboration, and the fairness of the investigation process, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant.