1995 (5) TMI 278 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the search and seizure operation.
2. Reliability of the panch witnesses.
3. Credibility of the police officers' testimonies.
4. Validity of the confessional statements.
5. Sufficiency of evidence to uphold the conviction.

Summary:

1. Legitimacy of the Search and Seizure Operation:
The appellants were convicted by the Designated Court for offences u/s 5 of TADA read with Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, and sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment. The prosecution's case involved a police raid on a suspected hideout of the Chota Rajan gang, resulting in the seizure of firearms and ammunition from the appellants. The search was conducted without the presence of independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality, as required u/s 100(4) of the Cr.P.C.

2. Reliability of the Panch Witnesses:
The panch witnesses, PW 2 and PW 5, were not from the locality where the search was conducted. PW 2 admitted to having joined police raids earlier and being amenable to the police, while PW 5 admitted to giving a fake address to the police and having a close association with PW 2. The Designated Court disbelieved PW 2 and found PW 5's testimony inconsistent and unreliable.

3. Credibility of the Police Officers' Testimonies:
The prosecution relied on the testimonies of police officers PW 1, PW 4, and PW 6. The court noted that while the evidence of police officers cannot be discarded merely because they belong to the police force, their testimonies require strict scrutiny and corroboration. The police officers did not join any independent witnesses from the locality, raising doubts about the fairness of the investigation.

4. Validity of the Confessional Statements:
The Designated Court disbelieved the confessional statements of appellants A1 and A2, recorded by PW 3, Hemant Karkare, Deputy Commissioner of Police, and ruled them out of consideration.

5. Sufficiency of Evidence to Uphold the Conviction:
The court found it unsafe to rely solely on the testimonies of PW 1, PW 4, and PW 6 without independent corroboration. The quality of evidence required for a conviction u/s 5 of TADA, given the stringent punishment, was not met. The prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found that the prosecution failed to bring home the charge to the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. The conviction and sentence of the appellants were set aside, and they were ordered to be released from custody forthwith if not required in any other case.