Absence of Sealing and Identification Marks on Seized Ammunition Renders Conviction Under Arms Act Unsustainable

On May 24, 2014, following reports of a quarrel and shooting at the Jamshedpur Civil Court premises, police found the appellant in an injured condition. Upon search, a single 8 mm live cartridge was allegedly recovered from his pocket.

The appellant was tried and convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge-V, East Singhbhum, on April 22, 2019, for offences under Sections 25(1-B)a and 26 of the Arms Act and sentenced to one year of rigorous imprisonment.

The appellant challenged this conviction on the grounds of procedural lapses regarding the identification and testing of the seized ammunition.

1. Whether the prosecution successfully established the recovery and identity of the seized ammunition beyond reasonable doubt in the absence of sealing or identification marks.

2. Whether the conviction is sustainable if the seized cartridge was never tested to determine if it qualified as "ammunition" under the Act.

Sections 25(1-B)a and 26 of the Arms Act, 1959, which criminalize the possession of unlicensed firearms and ammunition and their concealment.

The court relied on the evidentiary standard of "proof beyond reasonable doubt" and the procedural requirement that seized contraband must be sealed and marked to prevent tampering or substitution to maintain the chain of custody.

The High Court observed critical failures in the prosecution's case. Firstly, the Investigating Officer and witnesses admitted that the seized cartridge was neither sealed at the place of occurrence nor bore any unique identification marks, rendering it "general in nature".

P.W.-5 (Sergeant Major) testified that no separate identification marks were given on the ammunition.

Secondly, the Sergeant Major admitted that the cartridge was never actually tested. The court reasoned that without testing, it could not be ascertained if the cartridge was functional or met the legal definition of ammunition.

Furthermore, due to the lack of sealing and marking, the court concluded that the possibility of manipulation could not be ruled out, thereby breaking the link between the alleged seizure and the evidence produced in court.

The High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated April 22, 2019, and discharged the appellant from the liability of his bail bond.