- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Gurmit Singh v. State Of Punjab .
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant was prosecuted for offences under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5 of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA). Although acquitted on the IPC charge, he was convicted by the Designated Court under Section 5 of TADA, receiving a sentence of five years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹2,000 (six months’ rigorous imprisonment in default). The conviction arose from an encounter at Nurpur Bedi after the police, acting on secret information, apprehended the appellant and recovered a Webley Scot revolver with thirty live cartridges, a toy pistol, cash, and a police identity card. The present judgment decides the appellant’s challenge to that conviction and sentence.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether procedural deficiencies alleged by the defence—such as absence of a recovery memo, lack of independent witnesses, non-sealing of seized arms and ammunition, and omission of a Roznamacha entry—vitiated the appellant’s conviction under Section 5 of TADA.
- Whether the identification and admissibility of the Webley Scot revolver and cartridges were sufficient to sustain conviction despite the absence of a ballistic test-fire.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- No recovery or seizure memo was prepared, undermining the credibility of the prosecution case.
- The police failed to associate independent witnesses or prepare a list of seized items.
- The Sub-Inspector did not seal the revolver and cartridges or send them for ballistic examination.
- No entry of the secret information was made in the Roznamacha, casting doubt on the entire investigation.
Respondent's Position
The judgment indicates that the Designated Court provided “cogent reasons” for rejecting the defence contentions, which the appellate court found persuasive; however, specific prosecutorial arguments are not detailed in the opinion.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court reviewed the defence objections already considered by the Designated Court and found no merit in them:
- Recovery procedure: The trial court’s reasoning for accepting the seizure was upheld; the appellate court saw “no good reason” to differ.
- Non-sealing and ballistic testing: Although non-sealing might normally raise suspicion, the revolver’s serial number matched the number recorded in the rukka, and Armourer PW-2 Avtar Singh confirmed the weapon’s working condition. The court held that identity was clearly established and the investigation was not vitiated.
- Roznamacha entry: Constable Narayan Singh (PW-3) testified that the secret information was received at the spot, and the court accepted this explanation as sufficient.
- Overall, the court concluded that the alleged procedural lapses did not undermine the prosecution’s case or the validity of the conviction under Section 5 of TADA.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL DISMISSED. The conviction and sentence imposed by the Designated Court are affirmed. The appellant, presently on bail, is directed to surrender to his bail bond and serve the remaining portion of his sentence. The decision has no stated wider implications and sets no new precedent; its effect is confined to upholding the conviction of the appellant in this case.
Order
1. The appellant was charged and tried for having committed an offence under Sections 307/34 IPC and Section 5 of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (‘Act’ for short). He was acquitted of the charge under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC but was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs 2000 and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.
2. The police party led by the Sub-Inspector Swarn Das received secret information about the appellant when he along with other police officials was at Nurpur Bedi. He sent for additional force and went to apprehend the appellant. There was an encounter in which nobody was injured. The appellant surrendered and from his possession a Webly Scot revolver with 30 live cartridges in all, a toy pistol, some cash and a police identity card were recovered. The prosecution examined Narayan Singh, PW 3, and Sub-Inspector Swarn Das who have proved the prosecution case. The Designated Court after considering their evidences has found that the appellant was not possessed of any licence, therefore, he was liable to be convicted under Section 5 of the Act.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that in absence of preparation of any recovery or seizure memo the prosecution case cannot be accepted. It was further urged that no steps were taken by the police party of having any independent witness along with them nor any list of items was prepared. It was also urged that it was incumbent on the Sub-Inspector to have sealed the revolver and cartridges after they were seized and sent to the Ballistic Expert for examination. The learned counsel has taken us through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the judgment of the Designated Court. We find that these arguments were advanced and the court has given cogent reasons for rejecting them. We do not find any good reason to differ from it. As regards non-sealing of the revolver and live cartridges there might have been some substance in the argument but since the revolver seized was Webly Scot, the number of which was mentioned in the Rukka and the Armourer, PW 2 Avtar Singh in his deposition stated that he examined the revolver bearing the same number and found it to be in working condition, the identity of the revolver was established. The investigation cannot be said to be vitiated on this account. Apart from the mechanical testing the witness deposed in the Court that even though he had not conducted test-fire, but he was willing to test-fire the revolver outside the courtroom to demonstrate that it was functional. In these circumstances, we do not think that non-sealing in any manner cast any aspersion either on the recovery of the arm or that the arm which was sent to the armourer was different than the one seized from the appellant. One of the arguments raised by the learned counsel was that no entry was made by the police party in the Roznamacha after they received the secret information, therefore, the entire case was doubtful. But that, in our opinion, does not hold good as PW 3 Constable Narayan Singh has stated that the secret information was received by Swarn Das at the spot.
4. For all these reasons, the appeal fails and is dismissed. The appellant is on bail. He shall surrender to his bail bond and serve out the remaining sentence.
Alert