Bench: Justice Dr. A. S. Anand, Justice R. M. Sahai, and Justice S. R. Pandian
Appellant: Amarjit Singh Alias Babbu
Respondent: State of Punjab
Issues
1. Whether non-sealing of a revolver involved in a crime is to be considered a serious infirmity?
Facts of the Case
1. The appellant was found with a revolver and was charged with TADA Act.
2. Prosecution witnesses 2 and 3 found the petitioner with a revolver and arrested him. On examination of the revolver, cartridges were found. The Roznamcha was prepared for the recovery of the weapon and cartridges were attested.
3. Accepting the evidence by the witnesses and after the recoveryof the weapon, the High Court found him guilty and sentenced the petitioner.
Appellant’s Contention
1. The evidence presented by the prosecution is very inadequate.
2. No conviction can be nurtured on such evidence as it suffers from insuperable infirmities.
3. The first infirmity pointed out was that after seizing the weapon, it was tested after around 2 months without any explanation for the delay.
4. The second infirmity pointed out was the weapon was not sealed on the spot by the petitioner.
5. The third infirmity pointed out was that the sub-inspector, instead of sealing the weapon, handed over to Chhabra Chunnilal.
6. The fourth infirmity that was pointed out was that the weapon have not been sent to the armory.
Judgment
The Court held that the non-sealing of the weapon at the spot is a genuine infirmity since the chance of tampering with the weapon can't be precluded. The report of the Prosecution witness that the weapon is fit for being shot is irrelevant since it can't be said with assurance concerning what was the state of the weapon at the time of the recovery, aside from the proof of the Prosecution witness that he didn't test-fire the weapon.
Relevant Paragraphs
1. Paragraph 7: We are unable to agree and subscribe to this view during a case of this nature. The non-sealing of the revolver at the spot might be a significant infirmity because the prospect of tampering with the weapon cannot be ruled out. The report of Prosecution witness 4 that the weapon is capable of being fired is insignificant since it cannot be said with certainty on what was the condition of the weapon at the time of the recovery, apart from the evidence of Prosecution Witness 4 that he didn't test-fire the revolver.
2. Paragraph 5: According to the learned counsel though this weapon was seized on 27-6-1990 but was tested by Prosecution Witness 4 only on 28-8-1990 i.e. after about 2 months and there is no explanation for the delay in testing the weapon. The second infirmity noticed by the learned counsel is that Prosecution witness 3 after seizing the weapon never sealed the weapon at the spot. The third infirmity noticed is that the Sub-Inspector of Police instead of sealing the weapon handed over it to Chhabra Chunilal who are examined and who as per the Prosecution Witness 3 accustomed visit the police station. The fourth infirmity is that the evidence
