Holding

The appellant is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt and the conviction is set aside.

Summary

Sahib Singh was arrested on suspicion and a police search recovered a revolver with six live cartridges from his bag. He was convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987. On appeal, he argued that the prosecution failed to produce any independent local witnesses to the search, that the seized weapons were not packeted and sealed, and that there was no evidence of the chain of custody between seizure and testing. The Supreme Court held that while the lack of independent witnesses does not render the police testimony inadmissible, the police officer’s failure to call any such witnesses, the non‑sealing of the weapons and the missing custody link substantially weakened the prosecution’s case, creating reasonable doubt. Consequently, the conviction and sentence were set aside.

Issues considered

Whether the absence of independent local witnesses to a police search invalidates the evidence of the police officers.
Whether the failure to packet and seal seized arms and ammunition constitutes a fatal infirmity.
Whether the lack of a documented chain of custody for the seized revolver defeats the prosecution’s case.

Legislation cited

Subjects

reasonable doubtchain of custodyindependent witnessessearch procedurenon‑sealing of seized weaponsArms ActTADAconviction set aside

Judgment

SAHIB SINGH A
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB

SEPTEMBER 13, 1996

[M.K. MUKHERJEE AND S.P. KURDUKAR, JJ.] B

Criminal Law :

Tennrist and Disntptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987: Section 5.

Revolver and six live c01t1idges--Recovery of-No independent people c
of locality witnessed search-Anns and ammwiition allegedly recovered from
accused not packeted and sealed-No evidence to indicate with whom revolv-
er was after its seizure till it was sent to Anns Expe1t-Held : In the cir-
cwnstances of the case, accused was entitled to benefit of reasonable
doubt-Anned Act, S. 25. D
The appellant was convicted and sentenced under Section 25 of the
Arms, 1959 and Section 5 of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1987. Hence this appeal

According to the prosecution, the appellant was apprehended on E
suspicion and on search by police officers a revolver with six live cartridges
were recovered from the bag the appellant was holding in his right hand.

On behalf of the appellant it was contended that no independent
people of the locality were called upon by prosecution to witness the search;
that the Designated Court was not justified in solely relying upon the F.
evidence of police officers in convicting the appellant; that the _arms and
ammunition recovered from the appellant were not packeted and sealed;
and that there was no evidence to indicate with whom the revolver was after
its seizure till it was sent to the Arms Expert.
G
Allowing the appeal, this Court

HELD : 1. Before conducting a search the concerned_ police officer
is required to call upon some independent and respectable people of the
locality to witness the search. In a given case it may so happen that no
such person is available or, even if available, is not willing to be a party H
245
246 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A to such search. It may also be that after joining the search, such persons
later on turn hostile. In any of these eventualities the evidence of the police
officers who conducted the search cannot be disbelieved solely on the
ground that no independent and respectable witness was examined to
-
prove the search but if it is found - as in the present case - that no attempt
was even made by the concerned police officer to join with him some
B persons of the locality who were admittedly available to witness the
recovery, it would affect the weight of evidence of the police officer, though
not its admissibility. The arms and ammunitions allegedly recovered from
the appellant and seized were not packeted and sealed. There was no
evidence to indicate with whom the revolver was after its seizure till it was
c sent to the Arms Expert for testing. This missing link also weakens the
prosecution case. For all these infirmities the appellant is entitled to the
benefit of reasonable doubt. [247-F-H; 248-A-B]

Ama1jit Singh v. State of Punjab, [1995) Supp. 3 SCC 217, relied on.

D CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
61of1992.

From the Judgment and Order dated 21.12.91. of the Designated
Court, Amritsar, in S.C. No. 61 of 1991.

E Ms. Naresh Bakshi for the Appellant.

Ms. Rupinder Wasu for R.S. Suri for the Respondent.

The Judgment of th~ Court was delivered by

F M.K. MUKHERJEE,_ J. This appeal is directed against the judgment
and order dated December 21, 1991 rendered by the Additional Judge,
Designated Court, Amritsar in Sessions Case No. 21 of 1991 convicting and
sentencing the appellant under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and
Section 5 of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987.
G According to the prosecution case on May 12, 1990 at or about 12.30
P.M. when Inspector Gurmit Chand of Chheharata Police Station (P.W. 3)
along with Sub-Inspector Rattan Lal (P.W. 2) and other police officials
were on patrol duty near Bole-di-Bambi they apprehended the appellant
on suspicion and on search recovered a revolver with six live cartridges
H from the bag he was holding in his right hand. ;

I
1
SAHIB SINGH v. STATE [MK MUKHERJEE, J.] 247

• The appellant pleaded not guilty to the above accusation and his A
defence.was that he was falsely implicated at the instance of his neighbour
Sewa Singh.

To prove its case, prosecution examined four witnesses of whom
Manohar Lal (P.W. 1), a clerk in the office of the District Magistrate, B
Amritsar, proved the sanction accorded for prosecution of the appellant
under the Arms Act; P.Ws. 2 and 3 spoke about the arrest of the appellant
and the recovery of the revolver and the cartridges from him and Sital
Singh (P.W. 4), an Armourer, claimed to have mechanically tested the
revolver and found it in working order. Accepting their evidence the
learned Judge recorded the impugned order of conviction and sentence, C

It was first contended on behalf of the appellant that since no
independent witness was examined by the prosecution to prove the alleged
recovery of the arms and ammunitions from the appellant the designated
Court was not justified in convicting him relying solely upon the evidence D
of the two police officers. It was next contended that since no evidence was
led by the prosecution to prove that the offensive articles were packeted
and sealed after their seizure the possibility of tampering with them could
not be ruled out. It was lastly contended that from the test • !port of P.W.
4 (Ex. PF) it would appear that one Head Constable Baita Singh produced
the revolver before him (P.W. 4) but neither he was examined nor any other E
witness to explain how he (the constable) got the revolver from P.W. 3.

Having gone through the record we find much substance in each of
the above contentions. Before conducting a search the concerned police
officer is required to call upon some independent and respectable people F
of the lo.::ality to witness the search. In a given case it may so happen that
no such person is available or, even if available, is not willing to be a party
to such search. It may also be that after joining the search, such persons
later on turn hostile. In any of these eventualities the evidence of the police
officers who conducted the search cannot be disbelieved solely on the G
ground that no independent and respectable witn~ss was examined to
prove the search but if it is found - as in the present case - that no attempt
was even made by the concerned police officer to join with him some
persons of the locality who were admittedly available to witness the
recovery, it would affect the weight of evidence of the Police Officer,
though not its admissibility. We next find from the record that the arms H
248 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A and ammunitions allegedly recovered from the appellant and seized were
not packeted and sealed. InA111a1jit Singh v. State of Punjab, [1995] 3 SCC
217 this Court has observed that non-sealing of the revolver at the spot is
a serious infirmity because the possibility of tampering with the weapon

B
cannot be ruled out. From the record we further find that there is no
evidence to indicate with whom the revolver was after its seizure by P.W.
3 till it was sent to the Arms Expert for testing through constable Baita
Singh. This missing link also weakens the prosecution .case. For all these
-
I

infirmities we are of the view, that the appellant is entitled to the benefit
of reasonable doubt.

C We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the conviction and
sentence against the appellant. The appellant, who is on bail, is discharged
from his bail bonds. Fine, if paid, be refunded to him.

V.S.S. Appeal allowed.

,.

,