9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Violation of Fundamental Rights under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. 2. Validity of the recovery of firearms under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. 3. Conviction and sentence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Conviction and sentence under Section 19(f) of the Indian Arms Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Violation of Fundamental Rights under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India: The counsel for Pokhar Singh argued that obtaining his thumb, finger, and palm impressions contravened his fundamental rights under Article 20(3) of the Constitution, which protects against self-incrimination. The court examined the historical and legal context of this privilege, noting that it is restricted to testimonial compulsion, not any form of compulsion. The court referenced various legal precedents and scholarly opinions to conclude that compelling an accused to provide physical evidence, such as fingerprints, does not violate Article 20(3). The court emphasized that the privilege is meant to protect against forced testimonial utterances, not the exhibition of physical characteristics for identification purposes. Therefore, the court held that taking Pokhar Singh's impressions did not contravene Article 20(3). 2. Validity of the Recovery of Firearms under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act: The prosecution's case against Pokhar Singh included the recovery of firearms based on his statement. The defense argued that these discoveries were not genuine and violated Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The court noted that the firearms were recovered from different locations based on the information provided by Pokhar Singh. The court referenced legal precedents to assert that the discovery of facts in consequence of information received from an accused in custody is admissible under Section 27. The court found no evidence that the police were already aware of the hiding places, thus affirming the genuineness of the discoveries and their compliance with Section 27. 3. Conviction and Sentence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code: Mehtab Singh was convicted under Section 411 IPC for possessing stolen property. The court examined the evidence, noting that the recovery of the gun in three pieces from a public place (Gujri Mahal) did not conclusively prove that Mehtab Singh had possession or knowledge that the property was stolen. The court cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Trimbak v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, emphasizing that mere recovery from a public place does not establish possession or knowledge of the stolen nature of the property. Consequently, the court found reasonable doubt regarding Mehtab Singh's guilt under Section 411 IPC and acquitted him. 4. Conviction and Sentence under Section 19(f) of the Indian Arms Act: Mehtab Singh's conviction under Section 19(f) of the Indian Arms Act was based on the recovery of the gun at his instance. The court found that the recovery from a public place did not safely establish possession by Mehtab Singh. Therefore, his conviction and sentence under Section 19(f) were set aside, and he was acquitted. In contrast, the court upheld Pokhar Singh's conviction under Section 19(f) of the Indian Arms Act, as the recovery of firearms from his nauhra in village Badesra left no doubt about his possession of the arms. The court maintained his sentence of nine months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200, to run concurrently with his sentence under Sections 457/380 IPC. Conclusion: The court upheld the conviction and sentence of Pokhar Singh under Sections 457/380 IPC and Section 19(f) of the Indian Arms Act. However, it acquitted Mehtab Singh of the charges under Section 411 IPC and Section 19(f) of the Indian Arms Act, citing reasonable doubt regarding his possession and knowledge of the stolen property and arms.
|
