Case Note & Summary
The case involved appeals filed by Sunder and Satbir Singh against their conviction under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA), Indian Penal Code (IPC), and the Arms Act. The Designated Court had convicted them for offences under Sections 399 and 402 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, alongside other co-accused. The appellants challenged the jurisdiction of the Designated Court, arguing that no charge was framed under TADA, which was necessary for the court to have jurisdiction over the other offences. They also contended that the recovery of knives, which was central to the Arms Act charge, was not proved. The court examined the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, particularly focusing on the hostile witness, Head Constable Chand Singh, and found that the prosecution did not adequately establish the recovery of knives. The court noted that the other witnesses to the recovery were not called to testify, leading to doubts about the evidence presented. Ultimately, the Supreme Court found that the conviction under the Arms Act could not be maintained due to insufficient evidence of recovery and also set aside the convictions under IPC. The court allowed the appeals, acquitted the appellants, and ordered their immediate release if not required in any other case.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Jurisdiction of Designated Court - Non-framing of charge under TADA Act - The Designated Court lacked jurisdiction to try the appellants for offences under IPC and Arms Act due to non-framing of charges under TADA Act. The court held that without a charge under TADA, the case should have been transferred to a court with jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Held that the conviction under IPC and Arms Act was not maintainable (Paras 10-11). B) Evidence - Recovery of Evidence - Insufficient proof of recovery of knives - The prosecution failed to prove the recovery of knives from the appellants as the key witness was declared hostile and other witnesses were not examined. The court found material contradictions in the testimonies and held that the recovery was not established, leading to the acquittal of the appellants under the Arms Act (Paras 12-14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Designated Court had jurisdiction to try the appellants and whether the recovery of knives from the appellants was proved.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the convictions and sentences under Sections 399 and 402 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, and acquitted the appellants. Appellant Satbir Singh was ordered to be released immediately, while Sunder's bail bonds were cancelled.
Law Points
- Jurisdiction of Designated Court
- Recovery of evidence
- Conviction under Arms Act
- TADA Act provisions
