GURMIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was charged and tried for having committed an offence under S. 307/34 Indian Penal Code 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 Indian Penal Code but was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay fine of rs 2,000. 00 and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

(2.) The police party led by the Sub-Inspector Swam 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, Public Witness 3, and Sub-Inspector Swam 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 casecannot 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 Rakka and the Armourer, Public Witness 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 Public Witness 3 Constable Narayan Singh has stated that the secret information was received by Swam Das at the spot.