SUKHPAL versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 271 · Decided: 05-10-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.N. RAY, FAIZAN UDDIN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

t 
\ SUKHPAL 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
OCTOBER 5, 1994 
[G.N. RAY AND FAIZAN UDDIN, JJ.] 
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987: Section 5. 
A 
B 
Accused-Possession of unlicensed arms and ammunitions-Ap-
prehension by a police party from a notified area-Failure of accused to rebut C 
statutory presumption under Section 5--'Failure to explain purpose of posses-
sion of Arms-Apan from evidence of police personnel case supported by 
civilian witnesses from other localitrArmourer deposing that Rifle was in 
firing condition-Conviction under Section 5 held justified-Held as a Rule 
of prudence corroboration by a reliable witness is desirable but cannot always 
be insisted as a matter of cours~Test firing by Armourer is not necessary. 
D 
The appellant was prosecuted under Section 5 of the Terrorist and 
Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 read with Section 25 of the 
Arms Act, 1959. The prosecution case was that on 2.4.89 a police party had 
gone to a village in a notified area in connection with investigation of an E 
offence. There, they apprehended the accused who was holdings an un-
licensed riOe with 109 live cartrideges. The armourer has deposed that the 
riOe was in firing condition. Besides the t~stimony of the police personnel 
the prosecution case was sought to be proved by the evidence of two civilian 
witnesses who deposed that they had gone to the police chowki in connec-
ti~u with a dacoity case and during mid night, they were taken in a police F 
vehicle and they witnessed the arrest of the accused along with the said 
rine and the catridges. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence the Desig-
nated Judge convicted the accused and sentenced him to imprisonment for 
live years and a line of Rs. 500. 
In appeal to this court it was contended on behalf of the appellant 
that (i) his conviction was not maintainable because in view of the judg-
ment of this Court in Sanjay Dutt v. The State through CBI, Bombay, (1994] 
3 Scale 1004 the Court should have given him opportunity to lead evidence 
for rebuttal of statutory presumption under Section 5; (ii) the testimony 
G 
of the two civilian witnesses who belonged to a different locality was not H 
271 
272 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
reliable because there was no reason for them to stay back in the police 
chowki right upto the mid night so that they could accompany the police 
party at the time of apprehending the accused and that they also made a 
contradictory statement; (iii) if their evidence is excluded then the prosecu-
tion case which is based only on the basis of testimony of police personnel 
B should not be accepted without corroboration from reliable and inde-
pendent witness; and (iv) no test firing was made by the Armourer to 
establish serviceable condition of the rifle. 
Dismissing the appeals, this Court 
C 
HELD : 1. All the three essential ingredients for conviction under 
D 
E 
section 5 have been fulfilled in the instant case : (i) the accused had been 
apprehended with a rifle and 109 live cartridges of such rifle; (ii) he had 
no licence or permit to possess the said rifle and the cartridges at the 
relevant time; and (iii) the TADA Act was applicable in the area where the 
accused was apprehended. [276-H-F-G] 
2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the accused had 
sufficient opportunity to explain the purpose of possession of the said arm 
and ammunition and to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 5 
of the TADA Act, but he had failed and neglected to give any explanation 
or evidence which may be even remotely construed as an evidence by way 
of rebuttal. [277-E] 
3. There is no valid reason to discard the evidence adduced by 
civilian witnesses. Apart from that, the police personnel has also deposed 
and such deposition stand fully corroborated by the evidences of civilian 
F 
witnessed and by the recovery of the rifle and cartridges. Though as a rule 
of prudence, corroboration preferably by a reliable witness is desirable, yet 
in all cases, such corroboration cannot be insisted as a matter of course 
because it may not be possible in all cases to get corroboration from an 
independent witness. [277-A·B] 
G 
4. In the instant case firing capability of the said rifle has been found 
by an expert namely an armourer who has a special training in the subject. 
It is not absolutely, necessary to make a test firing for the purpose of 
ascertaining whether or not a rifle is capab

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