Punjab & Haryana High Court Acquits Man Convicted Under Arms Act, Finds Prosecution Failed to Prove Weapon Was Functional or Recovery Genuine

Case Name: Narender Singh @ Kala v. State of Punjab
Date of Judgment: January 6, 2015
Citation: CRA-S-1274-SB of 2003 (O&M)
Bench: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Raj Rahul Garg

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 25 of the Arms Act, holding that the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the recovered pistol was in working condition or that it was lawfully seized from the accused. Justice Raj Rahul Garg observed that contradictions in witness testimony, delay in sending the pistol for examination, non-sending of cartridges to the armourer, and absence of seal verification created substantial doubt about the recovery’s authenticity. The Court further held that the alleged recovery was linked to an earlier FIR under Sections 399/402 IPC, in which all co-accused had been acquitted, thereby undermining the prosecution’s foundation.

Summary: The appellant, Narender Singh @ Kala, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, on March 29, 2003, for possessing a .32 bore country-made pistol and two live cartridges without licence, and sentenced to one year’s rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹250. The recovery was allegedly made on October 8, 2001, during a raid at a brick kiln in village Khera Jattan while investigating a case registered under Sections 399/402 IPC. The pistol and cartridges were sealed on the spot, and after obtaining sanction from the District Magistrate, challan was presented under Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act.

During trial, the defence contended that no recovery was made and that the appellant had been falsely implicated. It was pointed out that the cartridges were never sent to the armourer, that the pistol did not bear the seal “KK” after examination, and that the armourer had not test-fired the weapon. The Court also noted material inconsistencies: the alleged recovery occurred in darkness at 11:30 PM at a site with no electricity; the ruqa (information memo) time showed overwriting; and the independent witness, though joined at recovery, was never examined. The prosecution’s failure to produce independent corroboration, coupled with discrepancies between PW-1 and PW-4, rendered the case unreliable.

Justice Garg emphasized that the burden to prove the weapon was functional lies on the prosecution, and the failure to send live cartridges for ballistic testing was fatal. Moreover, as the connected case under Sections 399/402 IPC had ended in acquittal, the Arms Act prosecution, based on the same incident, could not sustain on doubtful evidence.

Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence dated March 29, 2003, and acquitted the appellant of all charges under the Arms Act. His bail and surety bonds were discharged, and any fine paid was ordered to be refunded. The Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.