SAHIB SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 245 · Decided: 13-09-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.K. MUKHERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

SAHIB SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
SEPTEMBER 13, 1996 
[M.K. MUKHERJEE AND S.P. KURDUKAR, JJ.] 
Criminal Law : 
Tennrist and Disntptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987: Section 5. 
Revolver and six live c01t1idges--Recovery of-No independent people 
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. 
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 
A 
B 
c 
D 
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 
B 
c 
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. 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 
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 
G 
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. 
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. 

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