Manoj Kumar Acchelal Brahman Vs. State of Gujarat
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 594 of 1991
Petitioner: Manoj Kumar Acchelal Brahman
Respondent: State of Gujarat
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 594 of 1991
Judges: G.N. RAY & G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 11, 1997
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987
Section 3,5 read with Arms ACt, 1959 – Section 25(1)(b)(a) – Conviction – Independent witnesses deposing recovery of some object appearing to be revolver – No deposition by them or by police officer, who recovered the object, that he tested and found the fire-arm in working order -Held that in absence of such deposition conviction not warranted. Conviction set aside. (Para 2)
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987
Section 3,5 read with Arms ACt, 1959 – Section 25(1)(b)(a) – Conviction – Independent witnesses deposing recovery of some object appearing to be revolver – No deposition by them or by police officer, who recovered the object, that he tested and found the fire-arm in working order -Held that in absence of such deposition conviction not warranted. Conviction set aside. (Para 2)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. The conviction and sentence passed gainst the appellant by the learned Designated Court, Valsad at Navsari by the judgment dated 22-12-1989 in Sessions Case No.79 of 1988 are impugned in this appeal.
2. The prosecution in case short is that a theft had taken place in Village Kakaduva on 13-6-1988. When the owner of the house and other villagers were in such search of the miscreants responsible for such theft, they spotted five persons present near a tea stall and they suspected their involvement in the case of theft. The matter was reported to the local police and on being searched from the possesion of one of the persons, two sarees alleged to be stolen and a countrymade pistol and some live cartridges were recovered. The appellant and the other accused were, therfore, tried for offence under Section 3 and Section 5 of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred as TADA) and also under Section 25(1)(b)(a) of the Arms Act. The learned Designated Court, however, acquitted the co-accused because nothing was recovered from his possession but considering the evidences adduced in teh case, there are inde-pendent wwitnesses who have deposed that from the possession of the appellant an object appearing to be a revolver and lived cartidges had been recovered. Such depositions therefore, appear to be trustworthy and do not deserved to be discarded. But unfor-tunately nobody including the police personnel who had sezied the said revolver had deposed that the police officer had himself tested the said weapon and found it to be a pistol in working condition. The learned Designated Court in this case has rightly indicated that it is not always necessary to refer the weapon to the ballistic expert for his opinion. In our view the police personnel who everyday deals with rifles and postols will be competent to tell whether the weapon in question was in working condition or not provided he tests the same. But unfortunately that part of the deposition is missing in this case. It will, therefore, not be safe to proceed on the footing that the weapon alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the appellant was really an arm for which either under the Arms Act or under TADA conviction was warranted. We, therefore, allow this appeal by giving benefit of doubt to the appellant and set aside his conviction and sentence. The appe3llant has been released on during the pendency of the appeal. His bail bounds will stand discharged.
1. The conviction and sentence passed gainst the appellant by the learned Designated Court, Valsad at Navsari by the judgment dated 22-12-1989 in Sessions Case No.79 of 1988 are impugned in this appeal.
2. The prosecution in case short is that a theft had taken place in Village Kakaduva on 13-6-1988. When the owner of the house and other villagers were in such search of the miscreants responsible for such theft, they spotted five persons present near a tea stall and they suspected their involvement in the case of theft. The matter was reported to the local police and on being searched from the possesion of one of the persons, two sarees alleged to be stolen and a countrymade pistol and some live cartridges were recovered. The appellant and the other accused were, therfore, tried for offence under Section 3 and Section 5 of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred as TADA) and also under Section 25(1)(b)(a) of the Arms Act. The learned Designated Court, however, acquitted the co-accused because nothing was recovered from his possession but considering the evidences adduced in teh case, there are inde-pendent wwitnesses who have deposed that from the possession of the appellant an object appearing to be a revolver and lived cartidges had been recovered. Such depositions therefore, appear to be trustworthy and do not deserved to be discarded. But unfor-tunately nobody including the police personnel who had sezied the said revolver had deposed that the police officer had himself tested the said weapon and found it to be a pistol in working condition. The learned Designated Court in this case has rightly indicated that it is not always necessary to refer the weapon to the ballistic expert for his opinion. In our view the police personnel who everyday deals with rifles and postols will be competent to tell whether the weapon in question was in working condition or not provided he tests the same. But unfortunately that part of the deposition is missing in this case. It will, therefore, not be safe to proceed on the footing that the weapon alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the appellant was really an arm for which either under the Arms Act or under TADA conviction was warranted. We, therefore, allow this appeal by giving benefit of doubt to the appellant and set aside his conviction and sentence. The appe3llant has been released on during the pendency of the appeal. His bail bounds will stand discharged.
