MOHAN SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA.

Citation: [1995] 2 S.C.R. 610 · Decided: 08-03-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.N. RAY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
MOHAN SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA. 
MARCH 8, 1995 
· [G.N. RAY AND FAIZAN UDDIN, JJ.J 
Te"orist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Ac4 1985/Anns Act, 
1959: 
C 
Section 5/Section 25--l'erson alleged to be found ·in possession of 
revolver without licence-Apprehended in a public place viz. waiting Hall of 
Railway Statiolt""'"Convicted and sentenced by Designated Court-Public Wit-
nesses though available but avoided to be joined/associated in search and 
seizure of weapon-hosecution evidence highly <J,iscrepant creating serious 
doubt in prosecution case-l'ositive evidence .of good antecedents of ac-
D cused-Not a previous convict and never indulged in any subversive ac-
tivitie~ption under Section 5 TADA stands rebutted-Conviction 
and sentence set aside. 
The appellant was found to be in possession of a revolver without 
E licence at a railway stadon. He was charged with an offence under Secdon 
25 of the Arms Act read with Section· S of the Terrorist ~nd Disrupdve 
Actlvides Act, 198S (TADA). The Designated Court convicted and sen· 
tenced the appellant for the said offence. 
~\ 
In appeal to this Court it was contended by the appellant that the 
F · trial Court did not properly appreciate the evidence and had accepted the 
evidence of highly interested witnesses; that when the alleged incident 
occurred in a public place on a railway platform where number of inde· 
pendent witnesses were available, only one witness that too a chance 
witness was examined; that the prosecution story suffered from various 
/ G infirmities and that the defence evidence was rejected for which there was 
no reasonable ground. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. According to the prosecution the investigation had taken 
H place in the waiting hall of a Railway Station. PW6 the Head Constable 
610 
r 
1 
' 
/~ 
) 
MOHAN SINGH v. STATE[FAIZANUDDIN,J.] 
611 
clearly deposed in cross examination that 10 to 30 persons were present A 
in the waiting hall at that time. From the evidence of PW6 and PW 7 the 
Sub-Inspector, it is clear that the Railway BookiDg Office and the tea 
vendors stall were located near the place where the appellant was ap-
prehended and searched. But no one from amongst the persons sitting in 
waiting hall or any one from the booking office or tea stall was joined as B 
witness by the investigation in the search and seizure of the country made 
pistol said to have been recovered from the possession of the appellant. 
From the evidence of PW6 and PW 7 it does not appear that they made 
any effort whatsoever to call any public witness or railway officials working 
in the booking office while taking the search of the appellant and recovery 
of pistol in that process. No explanation is forth coming for not joining C 
and independent witness. (614-C-E] 
1.2. It is significant to note that the mobile sweet vendor, PWS stated 
that he knew the Sub-Inspector PW7 since he was posted in Police Station, 
while PW7 denied this fact probably to show he was stranger to him so as D 
to give the colour of credence to his evidence. According to the statement 
of PW.5 it took about one and a half hours in completing the investigation 
while according to the Police Officials PW6 and PW7 It took about four 
hours In completing the proceedings at the spot, which is difficult to 
appreciate and comprehend. According to PWs6 and 7 when they had gone 
to the railway station for purpose of checking, the appellant who was E 
sitting on a bench In waiting hall, got up and started walking towards 
outside which raised a suspicion and, therefore, he was apprehended near 
the tea stall. However, PW5 deposed that the appellant was apprehended 
while he was sitting in the waiting hall itself. (614-H, 615-A-C] 
1.3 According to the case diary statement made by PWs 5 and 6 the 
pistol was recovered from the right pocket of the pant of the appellant. But 
during the course of their evidence before the trial court they deposed that 
the pistol was recovered from the right dub of the pant. But the totality of 
F 
the evidence discussed and collective discrepancies noticed do not inspire 
confidence and create a serious doubt in the prosecution case. Therefore G 
. ..... 
it is difficult to sustain the conviction of the appellant for the alleged 
recovery and seizure of the pistol from his possession. (615-DJ. 
2. There is no evidence to show that the appellant had ever acted in 
any manner indicating that he was indulging in terrorist or

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.