1996 (9) TMI 652 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues: Conviction under Arms Act and TADA Act based on recovery of weapon without independent witnesses, lack of sealing of recovered weapon, missing link in chain of custody.

In this case, the appellant was convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Section 5 of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 based on the recovery of a revolver with live cartridges from him. The prosecution's case relied on the evidence of police officers who conducted the search and recovered the weapon. However, the appellant argued that no independent witnesses were called to witness the recovery, raising doubts about the credibility of the evidence. The Supreme Court noted that while it is ideal to have independent witnesses during a search, the absence of such witnesses does not automatically discredit the police officers' testimony. Nevertheless, in this case, the police officers failed to even attempt to involve local witnesses, which weakened the prosecution's case. The Court emphasized the importance of following proper procedures during searches to maintain the integrity of evidence.

Another crucial issue raised by the appellant was the lack of sealing of the recovered weapon. Citing a previous judgment, the Court highlighted that the failure to seal the weapon at the spot of recovery raises concerns about possible tampering, casting doubt on the reliability of the evidence. The absence of proper sealing procedures was considered a serious flaw in the prosecution's case, contributing to the benefit of the doubt granted to the appellant.

Furthermore, a significant gap in the chain of custody of the weapon was identified by the Court. There was no evidence presented regarding the handling of the revolver after its seizure by the police officer until it was sent for testing. The Court pointed out that this missing link in the chain of custody weakened the prosecution's case and created uncertainty about the integrity of the evidence. As a result of these critical flaws in the prosecution's case, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and discharged the appellant from bail bonds, ordering the refund of any paid fine. The judgment underscores the importance of strict adherence to procedural requirements and the significance of maintaining the integrity of evidence in criminal cases to ensure fair and just outcomes.