Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
JAGTAR SINGH
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF PUNJAB
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/04/1996
BENCH:
HANSARIA B.L. (J)
BENCH:
HANSARIA B.L. (J)
RAY, G.N. (J)
CITATION:
1996 SCALE (3)612
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
HANSARIA,J.
The appellant has been convicted under section 25 of
the Arms Act read with section 5 of Terrorist and Disruptive
Activities (Prevention) Act, (for short ’TADA’). It has
pained us to know that despite he having a full-proof
defence, it has come to be rejected by the Designated Court
on the ground that it was "an after thought". The appellants
defence was that the .315 bore rifle, which was said to have
been recovered from his possession on 25.5.1990, was to
bolster up a false case against him under section 307 IPC,
and the weapon was in fact one which was licenced in the
name of Avtar Singh, a partner of the appellant in a liquor
business, and was taken possesson of on 23.5.1990, to prove
which Avtar Singh was examined as DW.1. The Designated
Court, however, regarded the defence as "an after thought"
because prosecution witnesses had not been asked about the
same by giving any suggestion to them in cross-examination.
We are afraid the Court made an apparent error in saying so
inasmuch as PW.1, SI Gurinder Singh, who deposed about the
recovery of the arm from the appellant, had been
specifically asked that the rifle was licenced in the name
of Avtar Singh; and PW.2, SI Karnail Singh was suggested
that the rifle in question belonged to Avtar Singh and had
taken possession from him. It is a defferent matter that
these suggestions were denied. What is more, PW.2 admitted
that in the DDR (Daily Diary Report) there was no mention
about details of the case property recovered from the
appellant.
2. Nothing further was required, according to us, to be
asked to the prosecution witnesses and the learned
Additional Judge committed gross error in rejecting the
aforesaid plea on the ground that it was "an after thought".
3. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the conviction
and order for the release of the appellant forthwith from
jail if not needed in connection with other case.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2