Lapse in Sealing Seized Weapons and Non-Examination of Independent Witnesses Vitiates Conviction Under Arms Act

The five appellants were apprehended by a police raiding team on September 3, 2014, near an Airtel tower following secret information regarding a planned dacoity

The police alleged the recovery of country-made pistols (katta), live cartridges, a bhujali, and other items from the persons and vehicle of the appellants

Consequently, they were charged and convicted by the Trial Court under Sections 25(1-B)a/35 and 26(i)/35 of the Arms Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for terms up to 7 years

The appellants challenged this conviction on grounds of procedural lapses and lack of independent corroboration.

1. Whether the prosecution successfully proved the recovery of arms and ammunition beyond reasonable doubt despite the non-examination of independent witnesses

2. Whether the lack of marking on seized weapons and failure to test them by the Sergeant Major vitiated the conviction

3. Whether the appellants could be held liable under Section 35 of the Arms Act in the absence of evidence of joint possession or knowledge

The court applied Sections 25 and 26 of the Arms Act, 1959, read with Section 35, which pertains to criminal liability for persons in joint occupation of premises/vehicles where arms are found

The court relied on the evidentiary principle that for a conviction to stand, the chain of custody and seizure must be proved through reliable witnesses and the seized articles must be uniquely identified and tested for effectiveness to qualify as "arms" under the Act

First, although the seizure allegedly occurred near a village with numerous residents and in the presence of two named independent witnesses, the prosecution failed to examine any independent witnesses, relying solely on police testimony

Second, the court noted significant procedural lapses: the weapons were not sealed at the place of occurrence, there was no case number or unique marking on the seized items (such as the bhujali), and the raiding team failed to search one another before searching the accused

Crucially, the Sergeant Major (P.W. 10) admitted he had not tested the weapons, leaving their effectiveness unproven

Finally, the court held that while recovery was alleged from only two appellants, the rest were improperly roped in under Section 35 without sufficient legal basis

The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of conviction dated March 7, 2019, and the order of sentence dated March 13, 2019. The appellants were acquitted of all charges and discharged from their bail bonds